Findings Of Fact Petitioners purchased property in New Smyrna Beach, Florida to build a home. The property, which was platted in the 1940's measures 50 feet by 200 feet. The east side of the property (50') is located on Engram Road. The northern 200 feet and western 50 feet of the property is waterfront, situated on a tidal inlet from the Indian River. The Indian River contains the last remaining Class II waters in Volusia County. Class II waters in Florida are waters in which the state allows shellfish harvesting for public consumption. As the last remaining Class II waters in the county, the area requires special protection from all possible sources of pollution and negative environmental impact, including sewage outflow. According to the Petitioner, the seller of the property indicated to Petitioners that the property had been approved for constructing a home. The seller substantiated his assertion with a letter from the Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department stating that a county variance had been granted to construct a single family dwelling on this property, subject to certain conditions. The county approval letter specified the required use of an aerobic wastewater treatment system. The Petitioners were unaware of the state regulations and standards for onsite sewage disposal systems. The Petitioners hired a builder who applied to the HRS Volusia County Public Health Department for a septic tank permit. The permit was denied because the proposed septic tank system violated 50 foot set back required of sewage treatment systems from Class II waters. The proposed drainfield was located within 28 feet of the mean high water line, and because of the configuration of the lot and its depth of only 50 feet the proposed site cannot meet the state standard. The Petitioners' builder subsequently applied to the state Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a variance from the code standards in order to obtain the septic tank construction permit. The state denied the variance stating that the "request was not considered to be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements". The Petitioners received no notification of the time and place of the Variance Review Board's meeting because the variance application was submitted by their builder. Petitioners had no opportunity to personally address the Variance Board when their application was being considered. A sewer line is located within 1000 feet of the property and a sewage grinding and pumping system could be installed to pump sewage from the site to the sewer line. Such a system, costs approximately the same amount as an onsite system. A grinding and pumping system is an economically reasonable alternative to permit development of the lot.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, the arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the request for a variance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 132 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jerome and Bernice Massel 6426 Engram Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire HRS-District 4 P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
Findings Of Fact On October 13, 1988, Petitioner applied for a permit from Respondent for the operation of an onsite sewage disposal system in connection with a commercial project to be constructed on Petitioner's property in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner's application was disapproved that same day. Respondent denied the application because a publicly owned sewer system was available to Petitioner. A sewage line of the City of Lakeland, Florida, exists within a public easement abutting Petitioner's property. That sewage line is about 10 feet from Petitioner's property line. Gravity flow from Petitioner's proposed facility to the sewer line can be maintained. The city's system is under no moratoriums from any governmental body which would prevent the addition of Petitioner to the system. On October 17, 1988, Petitioner applied to Respondent's variance board, in accordance with provisions of Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.045, Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was considered by the board on November 3, 1988, and a recommendation that the variance be denied resulted. On December 12, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner of the recommended denial of the variance application. The denial letter to Petitioner informed him that variances were granted for the relief or prevention of excessive hardship in those situations where there is a clear showing that the public health would not be impaired and pollution of groundwater or surface water would not result. The letter further stated that recommendation to deny variance was premised on the availability of public sewer to the property. Existence of adequate drainage for the proposed on site disposal system on Petitioner's property is questionable. The water table during the wettest season of the year on the property is only 20 inches from the surface. During other parts of the year, the water table is 38 inches from the ground surface. Two residences are presently situated on Petitioner's property and produce a flow to the present septic tank sewage disposal system of approximately 900 gallons per day. A commercial building also previously existed on the property and supplied a septic tank flow of approximately 700 gallons. The proof at hearing failed to establish whether the commercial building flow coexisted with the present residential flow. Petitioner proposes to construct a "mini mall" consisting of four stores, each with one toilet, on the property. Since public usage of the toilets in the building is not anticipated to be frequent, Petitioner estimates that approximately 600 gallons of sewage flow will be generated on a daily basis. Petitioner's property is presently served by the public water utility of the City of Lakeland. While the property lies outside the corporate city limits, it is bounded on two sides by property within the city limits on which restaurants, served by the city's sewage system, are situated. The city easement containing the sewer line runs along another side of the property which is contiguous to U.S. Highway 98. Under current policy of the City of Lakeland, connection to the city sewage system is permitted only to property located in the city limits. Petitioner must agree to annexation by the city of his property in order to obtain connection to the sewage system. However, the city assesses impact fees in addition to costs of sewage connection and in Petitioner's situation the amount of impact fees anticipated to be levied by the city is approximately $53,000. Petitioner estimates the value of his property when the "mini mall" is completed at $700,000. Estimated cost of construction, without consideration of the city's impact fees, will be $350,000. While Petitioner does not contemplate selling the property after the development is completed, he will be leasing the individual store facilities. The sole objection of Petitioner to denial of his request for a variance recommendation is that he will be forced to resort to joining the city's public sewage system and, by concomitantly accepting the city's annexation of his property, incurring the city's impact fees. It is Petitioner's contention that the impact fees effectively make the city's system unavailable to him. Alternatively, Petitioner also contends that assessment of impact fees by the city will pose a financial hardship on him and increase the per unit rental or lease costs he must charge tenants. Petitioner also contends that his commercial project will cause no adverse public health considerations because sewage flow from his facility to an on site sewage disposal system will be no more and possibly less than that presently flowing from the residences on the property to the existing septic tank system. This testimony is not credited due to the fact that anticipated drainage flow is an estimate by Petitioner with no demonstrated expertise in making such estimates; drainage at the proposed site location is questionable; and Petitioner's application states that the proposed site is located five feet from a public water well. Petitioner asserts that facts of a previous decision of the variance board established policy which requires that the variance he has requested be granted. On May 19, 1988, the variance board recommended a variance be granted to an automobile dealership in Polk County to operate an on site sewage disposal system. Had the variance not been granted, the dealership would have been force to accept annexation to a city adjoining the dealership property in order to have sewage disposal. Such a decision would have resulted in two dealerships from the same company within that city. The applicant in that case would have lost his automobile dealer franchise or have been forced to relocate elsewhere. The automobile dealership property site possessed adequate drainage with a water table 44 inches below the surface during the wettest season of the year and 84 inches at other times of the year. Anticipated sewage flow estimated at 525 gallons per day for the automobile dealership is similar to the estimate of 600 gallons per day for Petitioner's facility. Impact fees were not a consideration in the case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying approval of the variance requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Deno P. Dikeou Liberty National Bank Building Suite 200 502 N. Highway 17-92 Longwood, Florida 32750 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to 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 issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2013.
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
The Issue Whether Respondents' Division of Hotel and Restaurants' license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed for alleged violation of Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) and Florida Statute s. 509.221, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On April 19, 1977, Johnny Bell, inspector for petitioner's Division of Hotels and Restaurants, received notification from the Health Department of Sarasota County that respondents' place of business, Port-of-Call, resort apartments located at Longboat Key, Florida, was not connected to the sewerage system of Longboat Key. Bell inspected respondents' premises and discovered that a septic tank system was in use at the Port-of-Call. He informed respondents that they must connect to an "approved" sewerage system within sixty (60) days. On June 20, 1977, Bell returned to the premises and found that no action had been taken to connect to the Longboat Key system. Respondent Edward W. Henderson informed him that he should not have to go on such a system because his septic tanks were adequate and functioning properly. Bell did not examine the septic tanks or ascertain if they were, in fact, in proper condition and operating satisfactorily. He proceeded to issue a Notice to Show Cause as to why respondents' license No. 68-606H should not have a civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked. The stated cause for such intended action was as follows: "Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) ; Florida Statutes 509.221 -- Failure to have sewage system hooked into public sewerage system." The Notice to Show Cause also informed respondents of their right to an Administrative Hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondents thereafter requested such a hearing. There is no food operation at the Port-of- Call. (Testimony of Bell, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the charges against respondents be dismissed. Done and Entered this 10th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence C. Winson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building, Suite 210 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Meshad, Esquire 100 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases concern whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, or the grant of a variance from the permitting requirements embodied in the statutes and rules cited herein, so as to authorize installation of an OSDS for property they own near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida. See, Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in close proximity to the Suwanee River, more particularly described as Lots 22 and 37, High Point Suwanee Riverfront Estates, a subdivision platted and recorded in 1983. Lot 22 is approximately 150 feet by 127 feet by 121 feet, and Lot 37 is approximately 100 feet by 175 feet by 176 feet in dimension. The lots were purchased on September 22, 1987 and December 10, 1987, respectively. The parties have stipulated that evidence and factual testimony adduced in this proceeding shall apply equally to the circumstance of both lots since they are in close proximity to each other and have similar elevations and other site characteristics. Accordingly, these Findings of Fact will be based upon that stipulated, combined evidence; and all Findings of Fact will apply to both lots, except as to elevation figures peculiar to each lot and as otherwise noted in these Findings of Fact. The Petitioners purchased Lot 22 for $14,995.00 and Lot 37 for $12,500.00. They were purchased in September and December of 1987, respectively. The Petitioners purchased them with the intent of holding them for investment and building a retirement-type home on one of the lots. On March 22, 1990, the Petitioners applied for an OSDS permit for the lots in question. The new systems applied for would be for a frame-type "stilt home", which would contain three bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of 1,232 feet, which equates to a 350-450 gallons per day sewage flow under the standards contained in the Respondent's rules. Hubert H. Raker, a certified, land surveyor of Cross City, Florida, performed a survey on the property, shown by Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. That survey establishes a benchmark elevation for Lot 22 of 11.79 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). That benchmark is actually six inches above the grade level elevation of the property at the benchmark location. Lot 37 was established to have a benchmark elevation of 12.25 feet above MSL, also six inches above the actual grade level of the lot at the benchmark elevation site. The site of the proposed installation of the OSDS has an elevation of 11.19 feet above MSL, as to Lot 22, and 11.75 feet above MSL, as to Lot 37. The ground water level, at the time the site evaluation was made by the Respondent's representative, was 60 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 22 and 54 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 37. The wet season water table for both lots was shown, by "mottling" existing in the soil beneath the surface of the lots, to be 54 inches below `:he surface of both lots. The soil type for both lots, starting with six inches below the surface, is of a "slight limited" soil characteristic and is fine sand down to approximately 48 inches and from 48 inches to 72 inches, consists of "loamy-sand". Such soils are well adapted to OSDS installation and operation. The property was shown, by the Respondent's own Composite Exhibit NO. 2 in evidence, to not be subject to frequent flooding. The property is, however, as to both lots, beneath the ten-year flood elevation established by the Suwanee River Water Management District's calculations and admitted into evidence in this proceeding as a part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit NO. 2. The ten-year flood elevation for both lots was shown to be 15 feet above MSL. Thus the surface elevation of both lots is somewhat below the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation. The bottom of the drain-field or absorption-bed trenches, if the systems were installed on the lots, would be a greater distance beneath the ten- year flood elevation. Thus, the property is located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwanee River and is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwanee River. Other properties and lots in the immediate proximity of the Petitioners' two lots are equipped with OSDS's, including a number of "mounded systems", involving the placement of septic tanks and drain fields in elevated earthen mounds in order to elevate them above the ten-year flood elevation. Petitioner, John W. Holian, testified in a general way that such a system might be feasible and advisable in his situation, as well as the possibility of installing an aerobic septic tank treatment and disposal system, involving the injection of air into the septic tanks so that aerobic, (as opposed to anaerobic), bacteria could perform the sewage treatment function, which typically perform the function better than does a conventional anaerobic system. Petitioner Holian, did not offer any detailed testimony or evidence which would explain and establish how such a system could work without endangering the health of the Petitioners or members of the general public, if placed on the lots in question below the ten-year flood elevation, nor if or how such a system would protect against degradation of the ground or surface waters involved in the proximity" of the sites. If the system were mounded above the ten-year flood elevation, the Petitioners did not establish, through proper engineering testimony and other evidence generated by a registered engineer, that the use of the fill for the earthen mound for such a system would not raise the level of the "base flood." In summary, although the Petitioners suggested such a mounded system or an aerobic system or such a system possibly used in combination, the Petitioners did not go beyond suggesting an alternative and did not offer evidence which could establish that such an alternative would be a reasonable operationally feasible one and would adequately protect the ground or surface waters and the members of the general public from health hazards associated with sewage effluent. See, Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. On May 1, 1990, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding upon the initial denial of their OSDS permit application and advised them that an application for a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation problem at issue, should not be pursued but rather, the formal hearing process before the Division of Administrative Hearings should be employed by the Petitioners. The Respondent asserts, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten year flood elevation was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications. The Petitioners apparently took-that advice because no variance application was filed. It is noted, somewhat parenthetically, however, that in terms of the requirements for the establishment of a right to a variance, the Petitioners have not shown that no reasonable alternatives exist to a standard subterranean septic tank and drain field OSDS, (such as those alternatives referenced in the paragraph next above, which efficacy was, nonetheless, not established by the Petitioners). Neither did the Petitioners establish, in terms of the variance requirements in the authority referenced below, that the installation of an OSDS would not have an adverse effect on the public's health or the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the sites. Because these two necessary elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a variance, through hardship, were not proven by the Petitioners, the elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a hardship variance have not been made out by the Petitioners and one could not be granted under the proof of record in this proceeding, even had the Petitioners made formal application for such a variance. That is not to say, however, that with proper preparation and presentation of evidence, entitlement to a variance could not be established in the future.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3109 AND 90-3445 The Petitioners filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John W. Holian 466 South Lake Triplet Drive Casselberry, Florida Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioner is entitled to a variance so as to allow the installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on the Petitioner's property located in Dixie County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, a platted subdivision in Dixie County, Florida. The Petitioner purchased the lot for residential purposes and seeks to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank) (OSDS) on that lot for purposes of serving a single family residence. The Petitioner originally filed a permit application seeking a permit authorizing installation and operation of an OSDS for that property. That permit application was filed on December 12, 1989. It was denied and the Petitioner sought a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings to contest that denial, which became Case No. 90-6134. That case was ultimately settled between the Petitioner and the Department and no permit application was granted. Instead, the Petitioner filed the subject application for a variance from the requirements of then Section 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was filed on June 21, 1991, with regard to Lot 24 only. By letter of October 9, 1991, the Department denied the application for variance and the Petitioner timely requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest that denial. Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, owned by the Petitioner is located on the Suwannee River. The Petitioner submitted a report of the Suwannee River Water Management District, in evidence, which indicates that the subject property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. The two year flood elevation at that location is 19 feet above mean-sea level (MSL). The ten year floor elevation at the installation site is 29 feet above MSL. The elevation of the proposed septic tank system installation site is 17.5 feet above MSL. Department personnel performed an inspection and an evaluation of the site. It was thus found and established by testimony and evidence, presented through witness Fross, that the water table level during the wet season is at or above the surface of the property at the installation site and the dry season water table level is approximately 6 inches below the surface grade of the property at the installation site. This is the reason, together with the fact that the property lies within the regulatory floodway and beneath the ten year flood evaluation of the Suwannee River for the river mile at the site, that the inspector recommended denial of a permit for an OSDS for the property. The Petitioner maintained that the information originally submitted and obtained from the Suwannee River Water Management District had incorrectly indicated the river mile at the site. The ten year and two year flood elevations are calculated according to the river mile at a given site, river miles being measurements of the linear distance of the Suwannee River and the Suwannee River floor plain. However, if the lower ten year flood elevation prevailing at the river mile the Petitioner maintained equated with the project site was applicable, by the Petitioner's own admission, the site in question (and indeed any location on any of the nearby lots he owns) would be below that resulting ten year floor elevation level. Ms. Emily Wilson testified on behalf of the Respondent. It was established that the education, experience and certification of Ms. Wilson as a registered sanitarian, together with her graduate and post-graduate degrees in the area of environmental science, accord her expertise in the areas of environmental protection, sewage disposal and sanitation and she was accepted as an expert in those fields. It was thus established that installation and operation of a septic system on the Petitioner's property would pose a threat to the ground and surface water in the vicinity of the site due to the high water table levels and the fact that the property, including the proposed installation site, is subject to frequent flooding. The exposure of the septic tank drainfield to ground or flood waters would allow the release of pathogens into those waters, which could be carried along into the ground or surface waters when the flood receded. These pathogens would endanger the health of the Petitioner, surrounding land owners and other persons through contamination of the drinking water supply. The pathogens could also endanger persons using the river for recreational purposes. The Department produced photographs which were introduced into evidence establishing that the road leading to the property was underwater due to flooding in the spring of 1991. That road runs along the back of the Petitioner's property and is further removed from the river than the actual installation site where the Petitioner proposes to install a septic system. After the flood receded, the water marks on the trees in the area of the proposed installation site on the Petitioner's property indicate that the area had been submerged under approximately three feet of water. The property was established to be subject to frequent flooding. Ms. Wilson is aware that other systems can potentially be used to adequately contain and treat sewage generated by a residence such as that the Petitioner envisions, including a closed system characterized by no sewage discharge. The applicant however has not submitted a proposal for such a system for consideration by the Department. She is unaware of any other system of sewage disposal that has previously been approved for use in low areas similar to that prevailing at the Petitioner's property and installation site. The Petitioner purchased the property under a contract for deed. The contract for deed specifically states that the property was subject to frequent flooding at the time the Petitioner purchased the property and the Petitioner was aware of that. The Petitioner purchased the property in spite of that representation in the contract for deed. The construction and use of a mounded septic tank and drainfield system designed to elevate the septic tank and drainfield a sufficient required distance above the groundwater table and the ten year flood elevation level could potentially be installed, but the system would require a very large, high mound. It was not shown that the dimensions of the lot would permit the installation of the required mound base pad, and mound itself, of a sufficient size to properly elevate the proposed system so that a permit could be approved. The mounded system required under proper design parameters provided for in the Department's rules would cause the mounded system to approach or even exceed the entire width of Lot 24. A mounded system located in the regulatory floodway, as Petitioner's property is located, would require issuance of a separate permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. There was no showing that the Petitioner sought such a permit nor any showing of the likelihood that such a permit could be granted at the time of the hearing. Additionally, the Department's rules require that a qualified engineer issue a certification with respect to the use of a mounded disposal system within the regulatory floodway which certifies that the insertion of fill material for constructing such a system in the floodway will not cause a rise in the level of the "base flood", also known as a "zero rise certificate." No such certification has been obtained. In order to establish compliance with the requirement for granting of a variance set forth in the legal authority cited below, the applicant must establish, among other things, that there is no reasonable alternative to the installation of the system proposed. The applicant has presented no evidence to show that there are no reasonable alternatives to the system proposed. Rather, the testimony and evidence indicates that indeed there may be alternative disposal systems and methods available, although the proof was not developed in this proceeding to establish what those might be. The consideration of another location for the system on a different lot or installation site presently owned by the Petitioner or of an alternative type of treatment and disposal system might be feasible but would require a new site evaluation and submission of appropriate information which could establish that a specific alternative system and/or location is feasible, in terms of the requirements in the statute and rules that no deleterious impacts to the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site would occur. Such an effort would have to be the subject of a separate permit application and is not at issue in this variance proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and 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 rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above, which denial should be without prejudice to a later permit application which might offer full consideration of potential, reasonable alternative sewage treatment and disposal systems and methods in the manner envisioned in Rule 10D-6.0471, Florida Administrative Code and other pertinent rules. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, 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 24th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: All proposed finding of fact are accepted. The Petitioner presented no Proposed Findings of Fact but rather a posthearing pleading constituting, in effect, a closing legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Prior 3106 Waverly Avenue Tampa, Florida 33269 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case concern the entitlement of Petitioners to the grant of a variance for the purpose of installation of an onsite sewage disposal system on property located in Dixie County, Florida. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On April 27, 1989, the property which is at issue was deeded over to Diane H. and Charles A. Miller. The property is located in Dixie County, Florida, and contains 0.377 acres. On Nay 23, 1989, Petitioners were granted an easement for purposes of ingress and egress to and from the property. On May 4, 1989, under the signature of Diane H. Miller, a Petitioner in this case, an application was made for onsite sewage disposal at the aforementioned property. A copy of that application form may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. It states that this application is for a new system at lot No. 2, southwest corner, New Pine Landing Subdivision. Reference is also made to the directions to the property and suggestion that the property is located behind Nevin Kean Public Park [sic]. The warranty deed, a copy of which may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, describes the fact that the property is adjacent to Nevin Keen Public Park. The application form points out that this is a new system which is by type of residence "MH." It would contain two bedrooms and a heated or cooled area which is 12 feet by 60 feet. Also attached in Petitioners' exhibit No. 1 is a paper which purports to establish the benchmark elevation of the property as part of what that paper describes as the unrecorded subdivision at New Pine Landing. It speaks in terms of an elevation of 11.36 feet as allegedly surveyed by Herbert H. Raker. That information is hearsay and may not be used for purposes of fact finding in establishing the true elevation in an instance where Herbert H. Raker has not provided this explanation. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. As a consequence, there being no other explanation of the elevation, it is unknown. To the extent that it is accepted that there exists a New Pine Landing Subdivision, of which the Miller property is a part, evidence was not presented at the hearing which would establish the date upon which it was platted. Copies of the warranty deed and easement which were admitted into evidence do not indicate that the property is in New Pine Landing Subdivision, nor do they describe the date upon which the subdivision was platted, if ever. From the proof submitted, especially the warranty deed and easement, it does not appear that the parcel in question is part of a recorded subdivision. This coincides with representations by Ms. Virginia Sessions, whose daughter is Diane Miller. Ms. Sessions speaks in terms of this being an unrecorded subdivision and Petitioners' exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence directed to Jermone Blake of the Dixie Public Health Unit on stationery of Suwannee River Water Management District refers to this location as New Pine Landing. Under the circumstances it is accepted that this parcel lies within an unrecorded subdivision known as New Pine Landing. There was a period of time during which the applicants did not receive a response from Respondent concerning the request for a permit to install the onsite sewage disposal system. Ms. Sessions testified that her daughter made a phone call to the Respondent to determine the status of the application and that the daughter reported that someone affiliated with Respondent said that Respondent would be getting back in touch with the applicants. This report by Mrs. Sessions of her daughter's remarks concerning a purported conversation between the daughter and the Respondent's employee is hearsay and may not be used to decide whether in fact there was a communication between the daughter and the Respondent. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. In any event, Mr. Blake communicated with Mrs. Sessions and informed Mrs. Sessions that the Petitioners would not be given a permit for installation of an onsite sewage disposal system and would need to file a request for variance from the requirements to obtain permission to install the onsite sewage disposal system. In furtherance of that instruction, the appropriate fee was paid and a form executed by Mrs. Sessions requesting a variance. A copy of that variance request may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. The date of that application was July 13, 1989. The form makes reference to the authority of the agency to examine the request for variance as being set forth in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The form points out to the applicants that the variance may not be granted unless: The Department is satisfied the stated hardship was not caused intentionally by the applicant. A reasonable alternative sewage treatment method is not available The sewage discharge will not adversely affect public health and/or significantly degrade ground or surface water quality. The application for variance makes reference to the New Pine Landing Subdivision. It states that the parcel in question is lot No. 2, and makes reference to a book and page number and a plat number and purported page number associated with the plat number allegedly pertaining to the subdivision. Competent evidence was not presented to establish that these references found on the application were correct portrayals of the recordation of the subdivision and plat number. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Again, this leaves the record incomplete as to any recordation of the existence of the subdivision and a plat number associated with that subdivision. The application describes the reason for requesting a variance as related to the fact that the lot is in a flood area where more than 36 inches of fill dirt may not be added. Proof was not submitted at hearing concerning the exact nature of the property in question; however, Mrs. Sessions as the person who had applied for the variance and has a layperson's knowledge of the property in question, is entitled to depict the general nature of the property and her explanation that it is flood prone is accepted. How much fill dirt may be added to the property was not established by competent evidence. Under the instructions for the owner associated with the application for the variance, the applicants are told that they should provide any supportive material and documents to the County Health Unit in Dixie County, Florida. This entails submission of a site plan, site location and reference map. These details were not submitted with the application as far as the record reveals. More importantly they were not provided at hearing. The instructions call upon the applicants to satisfy the terms of Section 381.272(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, and to state the reasons for requesting the variance under the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The applicants were told to explain why variance from the requirements would relieve or prevent excessive hardship and to provide technical documentation to support the supposition that a variance would not likely result in pollution or impairment to public health. Written on the form submitted is the suggestion that this project is a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, related to the 10 year flood event. The application points out the size of the parcel as being approximately .38 acres and the sewage flow anticipated is 250GPD. It points out that the drinking water supply is a private source. It points out that the type of residence is a single-family retreat that has two bedrooms. It describes the proximity to sanitary sewer as 13 miles and to public water supply as 7,500 feet. The distance to private wells is said to be 775 feet and to a stream 7,400 feet. The proposed system that the applicant has in mind is a septic tank and drain field that is mounded. The system is referred to as a subsurface septic tank and drain field with six inches of fill sand. Although the application describes that the water table during the wettest season of the year is below the ground surface by 36 inches and at the time testing was done that the water table was below the ground surface and "not found 72 inches," competent proof of these assertions was not presented in the course of the hearing. The description of the type of soil as being sand is accepted. Nothing more was revealed about the soil characteristics. The application points out that the 10 year MSL flood elevation is 14 feet and that the property elevation MSL is 11 feet. Competent evidence of those facts was not presented at hearing. Nor was there competent evidence of the adequacy of the surface water drainage at the property site. The application form points out that the Dixie County Health Unit recommended approval of the variance on July 13, 1989. That says that the property is in the Suwannee River floodway where maximum fill allowed is 36 inches and that mounds are subject to erosion and moving water. It is accepted that the property is in the area of the Suwannee River. The other facts that are suggested in these summary remarks were not established by competent evidence. The form reminds the county health unit that procedures associated with the variance requests must comply with Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. The county staff is instructed to list additional details in terms of the site evaluation and tell why standards cannot be met if that is the opinion held. It reminds them to reference the specific sections within Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, that are involved with the variance request and state reasons why a recommendation of approval or disapproval is being made. The completed form is then submitted to the Environmental Health Program ten days prior to any scheduled Variance Review Board meeting date. Substantiating documents must be submitted in place of or in addition to the data just described to include the application for septic tank permit, denial letter and engineering report and USDA Soil Conservation Service reports. Based upon this record an engineer's report has never been submitted. More particularly, an engineer or acceptable substitute did not present evidence supporting the variance. Mrs. Sessions received an August 18, 1989 letter from Richard G. Hunter, PHD, Assistant Health Officer for Environmental Health. A copy of this may be found as Petitioners' exhibit number 5 admitted into evidence. It requests that additional information be provided to the Dixie County Public Health Unit associated with the date that the lot was subdivided from lot 2, if it was subdivided at one time. Mrs. Sessions testified that she responded to this request. The exact information that she provided was not presented at the hearing. Consequently, it is not clear whether the information that was presented satisfied that review group. Within the correspondence of August 18, 1989, is mention of the fact that the review group will consider the variance request at a September 7, 1989 meeting in Tampa, Florida, assuming that the information that had been requested was provided by August 28, 1989. On November 29, 1989, Kevin M. Sherman, PHD, M.P.H., Environmental Administrator, Environmental Health Programs wrote to Mrs. Sessions to advise her that the application for variance had been placed on a meeting agenda for December 7, 1989 in Sarasota, Florida. A copy of this may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. This is seen as an acceptance of the application for purposes of making a decision on the merits. Neither Petitioners nor someone representing their interests attended the December 7, 1989 meeting in Sarasota, Florida. On December 13, 1989, Dr. Hunter wrote to Mrs. Sessions to advise her that the request for variance had been rejected. A copy of this letter of rejection may be found as Petitioners' exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. It reminds the applicants that the purpose of the grant of a variance is for relieving or preventing excessive hardships where it can clearly be shown that the public health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result. The basis of rejection was that the request was not considered to be a minor deviation from minimum requirements specified in Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The letter of rejection advised Petitioners of their right to a hearing. That request for hearing was made on January 11, 1990, within the 30 days allowed for making such requests. Testimony presented by Alma Walker did not establish the nature of the New Pine Landing Subdivision and whether it had been recorded or not and the date that the property may have been platted. Mrs. Walker talked with a person within the Dixie County Health Unit whose name is Frost. This gentleman told Mrs. Walker that the case had been referred for a hearing and that the applicants should continue to pursue that matter. His secretary made some remark to Mrs. Walker concerning the impression that six inches of fill is less than allowed for septic tanks. This representation is not considered to be competent evidence as to the amount of acceptable fill. Mrs. Walker's comments concerning the applicants seeking a new benchmark from a surveyor and the suggestion that the surveyor gave this information to Mr. Frost is hearsay and does not establish the fact that a surveyor presented a new benchmark for the property to Mr. Frost. Nonetheless, following this circumstance Mrs. Walker spoke to Mr. Frost about the survey to establish benchmark and was told by Mr. Frost that the applicant still could not get a permit because of not meeting the requirements of the 10 year floodplain. Petitioners' exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence attempts to describe the impression of the application for a variance as held by the Suwannee River Water Management District. It is hearsay and may not be used to find facts in that competent evidence about the opinion of the Suwannee River Water Management District as to the acceptability of the variance request was not presented at hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioners request for a variance from the requirements to obtain a permit for onsite sewage disposal. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-1204 The following discussion is made of the fact finding suggested by the parties. Petitioners' Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of suggestion that a benchmark elevation was determined. No competent evidence was presented to establish the benchmark elevation. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found in the sense that it is acknowledged that an application for onsite sewage disposal system permit was made. Proof was not established that all necessary information required by law was presented with the application. Paragraph 4 with its discussion of the significance of information provided by the Suwannee River Water Management District is not accepted to the extent that it attempts to describe the entitlement to a permit based upon remarks made by the Suwannee River Water Management District. The issue of whether adequate reasons were given for denying the permit application was not noticed for consideration at the final hearing and to the extent that that issue has any relevance in considering the variance request Petitioner's have failed to demonstrate any prejudice to their cause in pursuing the variance request. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are subordinate to facts found. The indication in paragraph 7 that Petitioners were having to reapply for a variance does not coincide with the understanding of this process in which the facts tend to establish that the initial variance request was processed to conclusion. In Paragraph 8 the idea of reapplication is rejected as is the contention that there was a failure in the explanation as to the reasons why the variance was denied. The explanation was adequate to notice the Petitioners of the reasons which the agency had in mind in denying the variance application. Respondent's Facts Paragraphs 1-7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 constitutes a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Michael Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 579 Perry, FL 32347 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Bay North Corporation should be issued a permit to construct a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system at Camp Weed, Franklin County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1978, Lomax Smith, a builder and developer in Tallahassee, Florida, entered into an agreement with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida to purchase some 42 acres of real property and the improvements thereon known as "Camp Weed" which is located in Franklin County, Florida. The purchase price of the property was $725,000, with an earnest money deposit of $20,000, and closing of the transaction to be on or before July 1, 1978. At the time of purchase, eight dormitory and several accessory buildings were located on the property which utilized septic tanks for sewage disposal. An existing deep well is in the northwest portion of the property for a water supply. Smith proposed to develop the property by the sale of lots, remodel some of the existing buildings, and construct new housing units. He employed the engineering firm of Broward Davis and Associates, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, to prepare the necessary design plans and a state environmental permit application for a proposed domestic wastewater treatment plant to be located on the site. (Testimony of L. Smith, N. Smith, Exhibits 12, 13) On September 6, 1978, Smith filed an application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to construct the sewage treatment plant (STP) at Camp Weed. He signed the application as owner of the property although he had not closed the purchase transaction nor acquired legal title at that time. The application and supporting plans were reviewed in the Northwest District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation after site investigation, and it was determined that construction of the facility would be in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. A construction permit was issued to Smith for the STP on October 10, 1978, subject to certain specified conditions attached to the permit. Notification of the permit issuance was not preceded by a notice of intent to grant the permit, nor were any third parties advised of its issuance. Petitioners St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc. (then St. Teresa Dock Association) and H.S. Oven first learned of the permit issuance when their counsel was informed by Smith's counsel on November 3, 1978, that the permit had been issued. Petitioners thereafter on November 17 filed a petition for hearing with DER. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 1, 4-5, 8) Camp Weed is bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 98 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The planned site for the STP is in the northeast corner of the tract which is some twelve feet above mean sea level and approximately 950 feet from the shoreline. The elevation of the property on the northwestern side is about 24 feet and is five feet in the middle. The land slopes generally toward the middle area and drains in a southerly direction to the gulf. The subdivision of St. Teresa where Petitioners' members own summer homes is located immediately west of Camp Weed. The members of the St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc., and Petitioner Hamilton S. Oven use the beach and gulf waters for boating, fishing, and other recreational purposes. About a dozen shallow wells in the St. Teresa subdivision provide drinking water for the residents. They are located over 1700 feet southwest from the site of the proposed STP. There are two ponds north of the St. Teresa area adjacent to U.S. Highway 98. An artesian well is located in the gulf about 25 feet south of the Camp Weed property. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Oven, Sensabaugh, Exhibits 2,7, 9-11, 22, 24) The proposed plant is designed to provide sewage treatment for 132 housing units containing an estimated population of 3 persons per unit. A gravity flow collection system to a pumping station will produce a peak influent rate of 29,700 gallons per day with an estimated biological oxygen demand (BOD) loading of 49.6 pounds per day. A basket strainer on the influent line will remove trash. Plant operation will involve the use of aeration tanks, clarifier, chlorination, sand filter and clear well for discharge to a percolation pond. A polishing pond was originally planned, but was deleted at the suggestion of the DER because it performs the same function as the proposed sand filter. Two percolation ponds for alternate use will be construed so that the pond bottom is twelve feet above sea level. A soil test revealed that a sand layer extends under the shallow surface top soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet before reaching the shallow ground water table and that the effluent will percolate through the sand at the rate of one inch per minute. A five foot soil boring by DER failed to encounter ground water at that level and show that rate of percolation through the sand would be acceptable. The ground water table is subject to an unknown variance indepth during the wet and dry seasons of the year depending on the amount of rainfall. Although tide fluctuations may also have some effect on depth of the ground water table, the tide most likely will be of minimum influence due to the distance of the plant site from the gulf. Percolation of at least three feet through sand before reaching ground water is sufficient to meet DER policy requirements. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Bishop, Exhibits 1, 3, 16-17). Based on the design of the STP, it is predicted by applicant's design engineer that there will be at least 90 percent removal of pollutants after chlorination and prior to passage of the effluent through the sand filter. The engineer predicts that after such filtration, there will be approximately 95 percent removal prior to percolation and that the effluent will then be pure enough to use as drinking water. Further purification will take place during the percolation process. The DER District Supervisor of Domestic Wastewater Permitting, who also is a professional engineer, substantially agrees with those predictions. Actual results of the treatment process can be determined, however, only after tests from monitoring wells are made during actual trial operations of the plant. It is further agreed by those experts that the average chlorine residual content in the effluent will be 0.5 parts per million. The DER supervisor therefore is of the opinion that, if the STP is properly operated, the processed effluent will not degrade ground waters, not adversely affect the wells in the St. Teresa Community or the waters of the gulf. After percolation, there is further dilution and ultimately the ground water which reaches the gulf in eight to ten days will be in a purer form than prior to introduction of the effluent. Although a twenty-year storm criterion was applied in the design of the percolation ponds, a catastrophic storm such as a hurricane was not taken into consideration since it would not be economically feasible to design for such an effect and, in any event, super dilution caused by such a storm would negate the possibility of water quality degradation. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The buildup of sludge in the plant's holding tank will require removal about once a year when the plant is in full operation. The applicant will employ a certified individual to operate the plant and to remove sludge periodically to an appropriate place for disposal in an authorized manner. DER regards sludge disposal to be a matter for determination at the time application is made for an operating permit. (Testimony of Huff, L. Smith, McNeill, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The applicant estimates that the construction of the plant and collection system will cost approximately $1,000 per housing unit for a total of $132,000. It is planned to recover this cost on the sale of lots. A condition of such purchases will be that the sewage system and treatment plant will be operated by a home owners association which is to be activated in the near future. Maintenance cost of the sewage plant will be shared by the individual members. Approximately twenty or twenty-five members are required for economical operation of the plant. (Testimony of N. Smith, L. Smith) The county zoning classification for the Camp Weed area is currently the subject of litigation by the applicant in the Franklin County Circuit Court and the result of that litigation as to permitted density of housing will determine the amount of units to be constructed by the applicant. In any event, if the applicant does not secure a county building permit, any DER construction permit would expire at the termination of the time granted therefor. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibit 24) At the time Intervenor Lomax Smith signed the permit application, Bay North Corporation had not been formed. It was incorporated in November, 1978, in order that Smith could obtain financing to complete the property purchase. The transaction was closed November 6, 1978, and a warranty deed to the property was issued to Bay North Corporation by the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida, Inc. The deed was recorded in the public records of Franklin County on November 7, 1978. Lomax Smith is the president and principal stockholder of Bay North Corporation. Promissory notes secured by mortgages to the Southern Bank of Tallahassee and the Episcopal Diocese of Florida in the amounts of $350,000 and $362,500 respectively, were executed by Bay North Corporation on the same date. Pursuant to a request to DER from Lomax Smith on May 15, 1979, the Northwest District DER Office, on June 29, 1979, purported to transfer the permit to Bay North Corporation and extend the expiration date to September 30, 1980. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 6, 14-15, 21) The construction permit issued in October, 1978, was subject to standard and special conditions, including the requirement that the permit holder comply with county and municipal regulations prior to construction. They provided that monthly reports be furnished to the DER prior to issuance of an operation permit setting forth wastewater characteristics during a trial period of plant operation. They also required that the facility meet the treatment requirements contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., including a 90 percent reduction in BOD and suspended solids based on concentration of the influent entering the plant. The conditions further provide that at the time of application for an operation permit, it must be shown that a certified operator under Chapter 17- 16, F.A.C., is retained, together with a copy of any contract for contract operation of the facility. Additionally, the conditions require that two monitoring wells be established upstream and downstream of the ponds and that quarterly ground water samples be analyzed and reported to DER. A further condition provides that a three-foot buffer zone must be maintained between the bottom of the percolation ponds and the maximum elevation of the ground water. (Exhibit 8)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit to Bay North Corporation, subject to the conditions attached to the permit issued on October 10, 1978. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George E. Lewis, II, Esq. 316 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32303 William L. Hyde, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ben H. Wilkinson, Esq. Pennington, Wilkinson, Gary and Dunlap Post Office Box 3875 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Alfred O. Shuler, Esq. Post Office Box 850 Apalachicola, FL 32320
