The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact The permit Applicant and Co-Respondent, Florida Medical Facilities, Inc. is the owner and developer of a 60-acre tract of land upon which it has constructed a hospital and will construct various attendant laboratories, medical offices and the like. Additionally, the Applicant is the owner of approximately five acres of land adjacent to its original 60-acre site which lies on Morningside Drive in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida. The Applicant proposes to construct and operate the wastewater treatment plant on that 5-acre parcel. The Applicant proposes to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant and effluent disposal drain field system which will accommodate and dispose of all wastewater effluent on the site by the absorption bed, land application method. The proposed sewage treatment plant will have an average daily design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons per day. The anticipated peak flow of the treatment plant will be 60,000 gallons per day. The plant will generate and dispose of approximately 900 gallons of waste sludge on a daily basis. The facility would employ dual drain fields, use of which would be rotated on a weekly basis. The proposed average hydraulic loading rate would be 3.21 inches per day or two gallons per day, per square foot of drain field. The proposed facility will serve a 100-bed community hospital, assorted medical offices, a diagnostic laboratory and a 75-bed nursing home. The permit applicant has agreed and stipulated that chemical, nuclear and other hazardous and noxious waste materials, blood, body parts, medicines, and drugs will not be introduced into the sewage treatment system plant or drain fields. The Applicant (FMF) originally proposed to dispose of sewage effluent emanating from its hospital and other facilities by transmission of it through force-mains to existing public wastewater systems, one of which is in Charlotte County and the other in Sarasota County. After exploring these possibilities, these alternatives proved to be either too expensive or to involve transmission of effluent over too great a distance to make these options feasible. Sarasota County has a local pollution control program approved by the DER, pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Under this program the Sarasota Environmental Service Department reviews domestic wastewater treatment facility permit applications pending before the DER and makes recommendations on their disposition. The county's ordinance concerning such facilities is equivalent to the DER standards, except in some respects it is stricter Mr. Russell Klier of the county environmental services department established that the proposed project as planned and designed, will comply with county ordinances regarding wastewater treatment plants. Indeed, it was established through Mr. Klier's testimony, that the proposed project has more redundancy and reliability safeguards than any other such project presently operating in Sarasota County. The proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal system is designed to attain the secondary level of treatment required by Chapter 17-6.060, Florida Administrative Code. The effluent disposal system will provide for disposal of effluent in an absorption field system as envisioned by Chapter 17-6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code and the Department's "Land Application Manual," incorporated by reference in that rule. The system, as proposed, will have the additional safeguards required by the "Land Application Manual" in order to attain "Class I reliability." The hospital, which is the initial facility to be constructed on the 60-acre site, is largely completed, and is being served by a temporary "package" sewage treatment plant until the permit application is resolved. The package sewage treatment plant, as well as the proposed plant and drain field land application system will only serve the medical center complex. All on-site stormwater and surface water run-off from both the 60-acre original medical center site, as well as the 5- acre proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal site, will be managed by directing stormwater and surface water run-off to holding ponds to be constructed and maintained on the original 60-acre site. Steven Houghton was accepted as an expert engineering witness. It was thus established that the system as designed will meet all water quality parameters regulated and enforced by the DER and Sarasota County in terms of the quality of the effluent generated by the plant and disposal system for disposal by land application. In this connection, he established that no nuclear, infectious, toxic or noxious waste will be processed by the system or introduced into the system nothing other than domestic-type sewage will be treated, processed and disposed of by the proposed system. Mr. Houghton acknowledged that the project will be located in an historically flood-prone vicinity, but that will not affect the quality or effectiveness of the operation of the plant nor the safe disposal of the resulting effluent. In that regard, the Applicant will place fill at the drain field site so as to provide a more effective soil percolation condition than that presently existing in the soils at the drain field site. Additionally, the Applicant will provide a sewage storage tank to provide extra reliability and avoidance of pollution caused by sewage overflows in the event of any excessive sewage flows into the plant, and as a safeguard against disposing of insufficiently treated effluent during periods of high rain and high surface or ground water conditions. Additionally, the system will be constructed and operated with sufficient redundancy of electrical and mechanical components so as to provide auxiliary capacity throughout the system, allowing it to operate efficiently 24 hours a day and to continue to provide treatment and disposal of the effluent in accordance with secondary treatment and Class I reliability standards, even during periods of mechanical or electrical outages. Petitioner Mary Wagoner owns and resides on acreage generally south and adjacent to the proposed project site. Mrs. Wagoner uses a potable water well in the shallow aquifer with a depth of approximately 35 feet. Mrs. Wagoner's well has recently been tested and at this time provides good, safe, potable water which she uses both for drinking, cooking, domestic usage, as well as water for her livestock. Mrs. Wagoner's well is less than 500 feet from the proposed "wetted area" of the drain field land application disposal site. Mr. Edward Snipes was accepted and testified as an expert witness in the areas of engineering and wastewater engineering on behalf of the Department. He corroborated Mr. Houghton's testimony in establishing that the project would meet the Department's standards for water quality and Class I reliability in large part. It was shown that the project will not likely have harmful effects on the Petitioners' water wells. Mr. Snipes established that the Department's "Land Application Manual" embodied in Rule 17-6.04(4)(Q), Florida Administrative Code requires a buffer zone of only 100 feet, instead of 500C feet, from the wetted area of the sewage effluent disposal site, due to the type of system and level of treatment proposed. That is, the system would provide secondary treatment, with additional safety measures incorporated in the design and operation so as to achieve Class I reliability. This Class I reliability standard includes a sufficiently high rate of disinfection so as to allow unrestricted public access to the site, and thus would meet the most stringent Class I reliability standards extant in Rule 17- 6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code. This permits a reduced buffer zone between the wetted area of the drain field and any adjacent, shallow-water wells. Thus, the buffer zone would, in the case of this plant, be allowably reduced from 500 feet to 100 feet. In only one respect, was any doubt cast by Petitioner's testimony and evidence on the showing of reasonable assurances that all Department water quality and wastewater treatment standards will be met. That doubt concerns the distance from the bottom of the drain field to the water table elevation at the drain field site, as that relates to the ability of the system to continue to treat and dispose of effluent within appropriate standards in this admittedly flood-prone area, as that problem would in turn relate to potential contamination of ground water in the area, especially in times of high rainfall and high ground water levels. In that connection, Petitioner Wagoner offered Herman Weinberg as an expert witness in civil engineering and he was accepted. Mr. Weinberg acknowledged that he was not a soil engineer and acknowledged that the Department or its witnesses were more knowledgeable about wastewater regulation, treatment and disposal methods than he. He opined, however, that the plant may not be able to reach Class I reliability due to its location in a flood-prone area. He fears that insufficient soil testing and water quality testing had been done prior to the filing of the permit application. and prior to the ultimate construction of the project, if that is to be the case. Section 17-6.040(4) (M), Florida Administrative Code, adopts by reference the United States Environmental Protection Agency design criteria for mechanical, electrical and fluid system and component reliability manual. That manual sets forth certain minimum standards for Class I reliability sewage treatment and disposal plants and systems. In this regard, the rule in that manual establishes that wastewater treatment works include holding ponds and basins and other structures of the disposal system. It provides that all treatment works, structures, as well as electrical and mechanical equipment, shall be protected from physical damage by flooding of a magnitude occurring on the average of once in a hundred years, the so- called "100-year flood." In this connection, it was established through witness Weinberg's testimony as well as that of Mr. Houghton, the Applicant/Respondent's witness, that the 100-year flood plan elevation on and around the subject site is 12 feet above mean sea level. The top of the proposed drain field would be located at 12.33 feet elevation. The bottom of the drain field would be at 10.33 feet elevation. The water table level established by witness Houghton as a result of his survey and calculations, is at 8.33 feet elevation. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in its "Land Application Manual," which provides criteria for sewage plant and disposal system construction and operation, requires a 36-inch minimum separation between the bottom of a drain field and the design water table level. Thus, the legally operative Class I reliability standards, incorporated in the above-referenced rule and manuals, and which the Applicant and the Department agree is the level of reliability required, given the conditions and the proximity of Petitioner's well, can only be met if the drain field disposal system is at this required elevation of 36 inches above the design water table level. Affirmative, reasonable assurances that this safeguard will be incorporated in the subject system are necessary in view of the fact that Petitioner Wagoner's potable water well is clearly less than 500 feet from the wetted area of the drain field site. In this connection, the Applicant/Respondent has proposed placing fill soil of a suitable type for adequate percolation and land application treatment of the effluent on the drain field site, however, it has not been established that this will be done to such an extent as to raise the elevation of the drain field sufficiently so that the bottom of the drain field is a minimum of 36 inches above the design water table. The installation of an adequate depth of fill soil of a suitable percolation characteristic must therefore be a condition on the issuance of the permit. Further, in that regard, the Applicant/Respondent's soil test and calculation of tile ground water level or "design water table," occurred in January and February of 1985, at a time when the southwest region of Florida was in a drought or dry condition, such that the water level or ground water table at normal rainfall conditions would likely be at a higher elevation. Thus, a grant of this permit must be conditioned upon the installation of sufficient, appropriate quality fill soil to ensure that the minimum 36-inch separation between the drain field bottom and the water table is maintained during normal water table or rainfall conditions. If this measure is not taken, given the 2-foot separation between the drain field, as designed, and the water table, the oxygen transferring capacity of the soil beneath the drain field may not be sufficient to satisfy the oxygen demand required for consistently adequate treatment and safe disposal of the sewage effluent. Additionally, in this same context, Chapter 1 of the DER Land Application Manual at Section 1.3, requires that sufficient storage capacity exist on-site to ensure retention of sewage effluent during conditions which preclude land application, such as high ground water conditions or flooding conditions. This capacity should be equivalent to three days maximum daily flow at the design capacity of the plant, or in this case, 180,000 gallons. Although the Applicant, by its plans and specifications in evidence, has assured that a sewage effluent storage tank will be constructed and operated, it has failed to establish that sufficient storage capacity will be incorporated to assure the retention of 180,000 gallons of effluent. Any grant of the permit application should be conditioned upon such an assurance. Finally, in connection with the above-mentioned condition concerning installation of sufficient, appropriate soil filling to allow for a minimum 36-inch amount of unsaturated soil beneath the drain field, that addition of fill should also be of a sufficient type and amount to ensure that the Applicant's proposed rotation or "resting" of drain fields for 7-day periods will be adequate to ensure that the subject amount of soil is unsaturated before re-use of either of the two drain fields. There should be incorporated in these conditions, upon a grant of the permit, the requirement that the Department monitor construction of the proposed facility to ensure that the above conditions are adequately met, in view of the low-lying terrain at the drain field site and the flood-prone condition of that locality. Petitioner Mary Nygaard testified on behalf of herself and her husband, Lyle A. Nygaard. Mrs. Nygaard complains of feared pollution of her shallow-water potable well which she maintains is within 500 feet of the drain field and sewage plant site. Mr. Nygeard established that the well is 187.1 feet from the Petitioner's southern property boundary, but acknowledged that no survey has been done delineating the distance to the proposed wetted area of the drain field. It was not otherwise proven how far the Nygaard's potable well is from the wetted area of the proposed drain field where the effluent will be disposed of. Various easements and roadways lie between the Nygaard's well and the wetted area of the proposed drain field site with indeterminate dimensions, thus it was not proven what distance exists between the Nygaard's well and the drain field site other than that it exceeds 187.1 feet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Florida Medical Facilities for a permit authorizing construction of an extended aeration, wastewater treatment plant and disposal system to serve only the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center project in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida, referenced above be GRANTED, provided that the above-delineated conditions upon a grant of the permit are complied with. DONE and ENTERED this 30th of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lyle and Mary E. Nygnard 740 Morningside Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Harlan Domber, Esquire ISPHORDING, PAYNE, KORP and MUIRHEAD, P.A. 333 West Miami Avenue Venice, Florida 33595 James H. Burgess, Jr., Esquire SYPRETT, MESHAD, RESNICK and LIEF, P.A. Post Office Box 1238 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Douglas L. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following specific rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to the extent that the proposals actually constitute proposed findings of fact as opposed to recitations of testimony and evidence, conclusions and arguments of law. APPLICANT/RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 7 constitutes a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 11 constitutes in part a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Accepted, but this proposed finding of fact is unnecessary and immaterial to a resolution of the material issues presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions which must be met before the permit should be granted as that relates to Class I reliability standards and the "buffer zone" issue. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the necessity of the installation of a minimum 36-inch adequate soil percolation zone and adequate sewage effluent storage capacity. Accepted in part, but rejected to the extent that this proposed finding of fact maintains that the nature of Mrs. Wagoner's well has been impossible to obtain due to her refusal to allow inspection. Indeed, Mrs. Wagoner adduced competent evidence of the water quality in her well. Accepted in part, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the additional conditions that should be placed upon the permit related to its location in a flood-prone area, and related to the distance between the bottom of the drain field and the high water table. Accepted. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions referenced above which must be met for Class I reliability and for avoidance of harmful effect on Petitioner's water well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted.. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning additional conditions referenced above which must be met concerning Class I reliability and protection of water quality in Petitioner's-well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting merely a discussion of testimony. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but this proposed finding is irrelevant to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as merely being a recitation of testimony. Accepted. PETITIONER WAGONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, except to the extent that it indicates the applicant will situate the facility in a manner so as not to be accessible to the general public. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a discussion and conclusion of law. 13 and 14. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. 15 and 16. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. They are rejected for the additional reason that portions of those two paragraphs that constitute proposed findings of fact do not comport with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. 17 through 31. These proposed findings are rejected as constituting conclusions of law and, to the extent that they embody proposed findings of fact, are not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. The evidence and testimony shows that reasonable assurances (except as to the permit conditions recommended) have been provided that all pertinent regulatory criteria have been or will be met. The EPA Manual criteria referenced in these proposed findings of fact (17-31) are not mandatory, whereas those in Subsection (4)(q) of the above-referenced rule are mandatory and have been reasonably assured by the applicant to be met subject to the conditions recommended on a grant of the permit by the Hearing Officer. Accepted, except to the extent that the applicant is reputed not to have provided data to substantiate the estimated design water table. The applicant's proof of the water table elevation was un-refuted. Accepted as to the first sentence, the remaining portion of that proposed finding of fact is irrelevant and unnecessary to a disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Accepted to the extent that the conditions recommended to be attached to a grant of the permit envision assurance being provided before a grant of the permit that the issue raised by proposed finding No. 39 is satisfied. Accepted. Accepted as to its second sentence, the first sentence in that proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented, and as being unnecessary to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 47. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 48. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 49. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 50. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 51. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 52. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 53. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 54. Accepted. 55. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 56. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 57. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 59. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 60. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 61. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 62. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 63. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 64. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 65. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 66. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 67. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 68. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 69. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the additional reason that the last sentence is a proposed finding of fact not supported by competent, substantial credible evidence and testimony presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the further reason that the proposed finding of fact is not supported by competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected in part as constituting a conclusion of law and accepted to the extent that reasonable assurances concerning the effect of the water table elevation discussed in the Recommended Order have not been provided and such assurance should be a condition on a grant of the permit. The remainder of that proposed finding of fact is not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented and is irrelevant. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented.
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 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
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent's witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Sometime prior to May 7, 1980, Petitioner, Wyatt S. Odom, applied for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs Lake in Orange Park, Clay County Florida. By letter dated May 7, 1980, Ronald E. Bray, Sanitarian Supervisor for the Clay County Health Department, advised Petitioner that his permit application to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat was being denied since the area of Petitioner's property was approximately 26,250 square feet2 A survey of the subject property revealed that the area is 19,890 square feet, which is of course less than one-half acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) (0.60 acre) with three individual sewage disposal systems already existing on the property; the land was not suitable for the installation that would allow the proper and required drainfield absorption area and setback requirement could not be maintained due to the existence of buildings, waterlines, wells, a lake and existing sewage disposal facilities which, if permitted, would be in contravention of Chapters 10D-6.23(2) and 10D-6.24(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Supervisor Bray and Sanitarian Thomas Haley, observed the subject property and the survey, and concluded that based on the size of Petitioner's property and the existing wells and septic tanks thereon, it was unsuitable for and could not satisfy the setback requirements and the required drainfield absorption area. (Testimony of Ronald E. Bray.) As stated, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his permit application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs. Lake in Orange Park, Florida, be UPHELD. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Odom P. O. Box 14735 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Assistant District IV Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner L. C. Prevatt is the owner and operator of the Riverview Speed Wash, Inc., a coin operated laundry which has been in existence for over ten years. The facility has twelve top load washers, four double load washers, one triple load washer and seven gas dryers. It is open from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. The facility is located in a shopping center in space which petitioner rents on a month-by-month basis. The facility utilizes a 0.0075 mgd waste treatment plant with effluent disposal to a county-owned drainage ditch which is connected and discharges to the Alafia River approximately 0.6 miles south of the facility. On or about May 29, 1981, petitioner submitted an application for a temporary operation permit for his Riverview laundry facility. Temporary operation permits are issued by the DER when a facility is not currently meeting State water quality standards and the applicant needs or desires a period of time to bring the facility up to the applicable standards. Here, the petitioner stated on his application that no upgrade of the waste treatment facility was planned. The application further stated that the facility would be connected to an area wide regional waste treatment system when that system became available. After numerous requests for further information from the applicant and various inspections of the facility, the DER issued its notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a temporary operation permit. Reasons for the intended denial included failure to provide requested background water quality information, failure to provide a proposed water quality standards compliance schedule, failure to provide reasonable assurance that a municipal sewer would be available as an alternative means of disposal and improper and deficient operation and maintenance of the facility. Numerous inspections of the petitioner's facility by personnel from the DER and the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission revealed that the facility was not functional in terms of operating correctly and that the design of the plant was inadequate to meet State water quality standards. Specifically, these inspections revealed that the chlorination equipment was not operational, that the trickling filter was not operational, that the removal rates for BOD and suspended solids were consistently and significantly less than the State standard of 90 percent, that the discharge and effluent were of a milky color and would not meet the State standards for turbidity and color, that the water quality of the drainage ditch was extremely low and that the water quality results were actually worse after going through the existing system. It was determined that the discharge was degrading the quality of the receiving waters and that, even if the petitioner's operational and maintenance problems were solved, the design of the facility is not adequate to assure future compliance with State standards. Petitioner admits that his facility does not currently meet State water quality standards. In mitigation, it is contended that many other laundries in the area also do not meet State standards, that it is not economically feasible to redesign the facility to attain compliance, that he has no land available upon which to discharge effluent and that he would be willing to install a sand filter and did have the permission of the manager (not the owner) of the property to discharge effluent into the parking lot drain ponds. No written evidence of this agreement was adduced and there was no demonstration that such runoff ponds would be able to hold and/or treat effluent from the petitioner's facility. There was also no evidence offered to demonstrate that a municipal or regional sewer system would be available in the near future to serve the laundry facility.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a temporary operation permit for Riverview Speed Wash, Inc. be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 7th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: L. C. Prevatt Post Office Box 998 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 William W. Deane, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance for installation of an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for property located 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 Lot 4, Wonderland Subdivision. The property is approximately 60 by 150 feet in size and was purchased in 1982 for a price of $9,000.00. It is presently appraised at $11,000.00; however, if an OSDS could be permitted and installed, the property would appraise for approximately $22,000.00. The lot was platted in 1957. On October 19, 1989, the Petitioner made an application for a variance from the OSDS permit requirements for the property. The application form indicated, and the Petitioner intends, that this would be a new system for a single-family residence. The residence would contain two bedrooms and would produce approximately 250 gallons per day of sewage flow. The Petitioner desires to construct a residence on the property to have a pleasant place to live and is suffering a hardship because of the investment which he has made in the property, which is of no use to him if he cannot obtain the subject permit or variance and install the OSDS so that he can construct his residence. Alternatively, he is unable to sell the property readily without the ability to obtain an OSDS permit or variance for the property. At the behest of the Respondent in the permit application or variance application process, the Petitioner obtained a survey of the property by a registered land surveyor (see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 in evidence). That survey resulted in a benchmark elevation being established of 12 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation is 11.71 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood plain elevation for this property is 16 feet above MSL, as verified by records of the Suwannee River Water Management District in evidence without objection. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Although the Petitioner acknowledged in a general way that he would be amenable to consideration of various alternative types of systems involving piping of sewage effluent to an appropriate upland disposal and treatment area, the use of chemical toilets or other appropriate non-discharge types of treatment and disposal systems, no concrete evidence was adduced from the Petitioner to establish that such are or are not reasonable alternatives to the conventional subterranean septic tank and drainfield type of disposal system with which the variance application is concerned. Consequently, the Petitioner's proof does not establish that no reasonable alternatives exist in order to secure the grant of a variance nor did the Petitioner's proof establish that the type of system proposed would not pollute the ground or surface waters or pose a threat to public health in terms of the standard subterranean OSDS or any alternative systems which the Petitioner might theoretically employ, including the types mentioned above. The Petitioner's proof simply did not establish that installation of a standard subterranean OSDS would only pose a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules cited herein nor did the Petitioner establish that no reasonable alternatives exist to the establishment of a standard OSDS, as that relates to the substantiality of the hardship which the Petitioner is experiencing in not getting the OSDS originally requested permitted; and the Petitioner did not establish that any system proposed would not pose a threat to public health or pollute ground or surface waters. In summary, the Petitioner did not establish that a sufficient hardship is experienced, because reasonable alternatives have not adequately been explored and considered by the Petitioner nor made a part of the subject of Petitioner's proof nor has the Petitioner established that a grant of a variance would involve only a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules standards because it has not been proven that the public health nor the ground or surface waters would not be adversely affected. Finally, because the property is located in the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River, under Rule 10D- 6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, before a mounded or filled OSDS could be permitted and installed, which is one alternative under consideration, a registered professional engineer must certify that the mounding of the system and installation of fill in the regulatory floodway area would not cause elevation of the "base flood" of the Suwannee River. No such engineering evidence or testimony has been adduced iii this proceeding; therefore, such an alternative system cannot herein be recommended for approval.
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 a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th 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, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3111 Respondent' Proposed Findings of Fact: All of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are 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 Marilou Clark Suwannee Plantation Realty Rt. 3, Box 73 Old Town, FL 32680 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 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.
