The Issue The issue for consideration in this case concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing the installation of an OSDS on property which they own near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the permitting requirements of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the proximity of the Suwannee River. The property is described as Lot 38, Highpoint Suwannee Riverfront Estates. The lot in question is 82 feet by 141 feet in size and was purchased in April, 1988 for approximately $5000.00. The lot, and the subdivision it is in, was platted in 1983. On February 21, 1990, the Petitioners made application for an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, seeking to install such a system on this lot in order to be able to construct a vacation cottage on the lot The proposed cottage would contain one bedroom and would have a heated and cooled area of approximately 500 square feet. Upon reviewing the application, the, Respondent informed the Petitioners that they would need to have a surveyor establish the elevation of their lot, and particularly the site of the proposed OSDS installation, as well as to establish, through contact with the Suwannee River Water Management District, the ten-year flood elevation for the property. Accordingly, the Petitioners obtained a survey by `Mr. Herbert Raker, a registered land surveyor of Cross City, Florida. That survey shows a benchmark elevation of 13.09 feet above mean sea level ("MSL") That benchmark elevation is six inches above the actual grade surface of the lot so that the elevation at the proposed OSDS installation site is 12.59 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the property is 15 feet above MSL, as established by data from the Suwannee River Water Management District contained in a report which is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. That flood elevation data was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioners with the application for the OSDS permit. The property in question is located within the ten- year flood plain of the Suwannee River, and it is also located within the regulatory floodway of the River. On April 24, 1990, after advising the Petitioners of the denial of the OSDS permit application, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding rather than file an informal variance application before the Respondent's own Variance Board. The Respondent took the position that a variance could not be granted from the requirements of Rule 10D- 6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the subject property was located within the ten-year flood plain of the Suwannee River and because of the Respondent's interpretation of the affect of the Governor's Executive Order 90- 14, which adopted by reference the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that all such systems be prohibited within the ten-year flood plain. The Respondent thus declined to exercise its discretion, accorded it in the statute and rule cited hereinbelow, to entertain and consider a variance application. Finally, it is established that the lot in question is not subject to frequent flooding; but because the surface grade is beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain field trenches absorption bed to be installed would also be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In other respects, the property is a amenable to the installation of an effective OSDS because the wet season water table is 48 inches beneath the surface grade and would be more than 24 inches beneath the proposed drain field. The normal water table is approximately 60 inches beneath the surface grade. Appropriate limited soils are present beneath the first six inches of soil below the surface and consist of fine sand, light brown and brown fine sand, down to 60 inches, which is appropriate for effective subterranean treatment and disposal of sewage effluent. The Petitioners established a definite hardship on their part by the fact that they have paid a substantial sum for the lot and are now unable to develop it unless they receive entitlement to an OSDS or some reasonable alternative. In that regard, no sufficient proof of truly effective, reasonable alternatives was established by the Petitioners. However, they did establish that an anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system might be an effective alternative treatment and disposal method for the property in question. An aerobic system involves the injection of air into the attendant septic tank to support aerobic bacteria which break down and treat sewage at a faster, more effective rate than does the normal anaerobic bacteria-based system. The resulting effluent is substantially lower in BOD and suspended solids than is the effluent from the normal subterranean and anaerobic septic tank and drain field disposal system. The problem with such an aerobic system is that it involves mechanical equipment, especially, an external electric motor and pump to force air into the system. This is disadvantageous in that, if the equipment suffers a breakdown, then treatment and appropriate disposal of the effluent stops. The untreated sewage can then rise to the surface of the property or otherwise pollute ground or surface waters and potentially cause a public health hazard. Thus, such systems would require inspection periodically to insure that they are in adequate working order because if the mechanical system malfunctions, the system will continue to put effluent through its drain field without adequate treatment. In this circumstance, the occupants of the dwelling served by the system might not notice for long periods of time that it is inoperative because the system will continue to dispose of effluent, but just of an untreated nature. Accordingly, when the motor and air pump system becomes inoperative, there is less incentive for the owner to repair it. Thus, it is likely that if such a system were installed, some means would have to be found to insure that the owner keeps the system in good repair and working order. The means by which such an arrangement for insuring that such an aerobic system works properly at all times was not established in this record, however. Consequently, the Petitioners failed to establish that reasonable alternatives to the proposed conventional system exist and what they might consist of.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the carndor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioners' application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3112 The Petitioners filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Betsy K. Lanier, pro se P.O. Box 238 Old Town, FL 32680 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Tract 10, Suwannee Shores Run Subdivision. The property is approximately one acre in size and was purchased in December of 1989. The subdivision is unrecorded, and there was no testimony regarding a platting date thereof. On January 17, 1990, the Petitioner made an application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property. The application was for a new single-family mobile home system. The residence involved will contain two bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of approximately 480 square feet, with an approximate 300-gallon-per-day sewage flow. Upon receiving the application, the Department's local public health official informed the Petitioner that he would have to obtain a benchmark elevation for the surface of his property and also establish the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Petitioner, therefore, obtained the services of a registered land surveyor, who established a benchmark elevation for the subject property of 19.23 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The mark is actually 6 inches above ground level. The actual elevation of the surface grade of the property at the proposed septic tank system installation site is 19 feet above MSL. The ground water level at the time of the evaluation of the site by the Department's personnel was 66 inches below the surface of the lot. The wet season ground water or water table level is 60 inches below the surface of the lot. The property is characterized by slight to moderate limited soils, consisting of fine sand from 6 inches depth down to 60 inches depth. The first 6 inches of soil near the surface of the property is organic in nature. The information, contained in a report promulgated by the Suwannee River Water Management District and submitted to the Department by the Petitioner with the permit application, shows that the ten-year flood elevation for the property in question is 23 feet above MSL. That ten-year flood elevation was not refuted. The property, thus, is located within the ten-year flood plain of the Suwannee River; and it is also located within the "regulatory floodway". There is not a central water system available to the property, and potable water for the subject dwelling will come from a well. In addition to lying beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River, as mentioned above. This means that if a mounded septic tank and drain-field system were installed, (which would likely result in appropriate treatment of the sewage effluent because of site conditions referenced herein); in order to install such a system, to raise the drain fields above the ten-year flood elevation, a certification by a registered engineer would have to be performed to establish that the installation of the required volume of fill dirt for the mounded system would not cause an elevation of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence was offered in this proceeding, however. Thus, this portion of Rule 10-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, has not been complied with. The OSDS could appropriately be installed from an environmental standpoint, given the depth of appropriate moderate to slightly limited soils prevailing at the site and the depth of the water table. The estimated wet season water table is 60 inches below the existing surface grade, and the normal water table is 66 inches below the surface grade. Although organic soil prevails for the first 6 inches at the site; below the first 6 inches, the soils are characterized as being fine sand. This soil type and condition, as well as the depth of the water table below the location of the drain field and septic tank site establishes that installation and operation of an OSDS in this location would likely be successful. Since the property and the installation site are beneath the ten-year flood elevation, however, a mounded system would have to be installed to raise the bottom of the drain-field trenches or absorption beds above that ten-year flood elevation referenced above. Thus, although a mounded system would appear to be feasible, the appropriate engineering testimony, with regard to its presence in the regulatory floodway, was not offered. Thus, the grant of the permit based upon mounding of the system as a reasonable alternative approach to successful treatment and disposal of the effluent in question has not been established. The Respondent, by letter of April 24, 1990, advised the Petitioner of the denial of the OSDS permit and also advised the Petitioner that he should pursue a formal administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings, rather than file an informal variance application before the Respondent's own variance board. The Respondent took the position that a variance could not be granted from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, because the property was located within the ten- year flood elevation of the Suwannee River and because of the Respondent's interpretation of the effect of the Governor's Executive Order No. 90-14, which adopted by reference the Suwannee River Task Force recommendation that all such OSDS's be prohibited within the ten-year flood elevation. The Respondent thus declined to exercise its discretion, accorded it in the statute and rules cited hereinbelow, to entertain and consider a variance application. It was established that the lot in question is not subject to frequent flooding. However, because the surface grade is beneath the ten-year flood elevation, the bottom of the drain-field trenches or absorption beds would also be beneath the ten-year flood elevation, although the property is amenable to the installation of an effective OSDS otherwise because of the depth of the wet season water table and the types of soil prevailing at the site. The Petitioner established a hardship due to the fact that he has paid a substantial sum of money for the property and now is unable to develop it unless entitlement to an OSDS or some reasonable alternative is gained. No substantial proof of a truly-effective, reasonable alternative method of treating the effluent in question was established by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did establish, however, that a mounded system could be made to successfully operate, treat and dispose of the sewage effluent. A mounded system, however, would necessitate the required engineering certification and calculations before installation. No such effort has been made with appropriate engineering personnel and no evidence of such was adduced in this proceeding. The Petitioner has also raised the possibility that an aerobic septic tank and drain-field system might be an effective alternative treatment and disposal method for the property in question. An aerobic system involves the injection of air into the attendant septic tank to support aerobic bacteria, which break down and treat sewage at a faster, more effective rate than does the normal, anaerobic bacteria-based system. The resulting effluent is substantially lower in BOD and suspended solids than is the effluent from the normal, subterranean anaerobic septic tank and drain-field disposal system. The problem with such an aerobic system is that it involves mechanical equipment, especially an external electric motor and pump to force air into the system. This is disadvantageous in that if the equipment suffers a malfunction, the high level of treatment and disposal of the effluent is retarded. When the electric motor and/or pump malfunction and air is no longer injected into the septic tank to support the more active aerobic treatment bacteria, the system then ceases functioning as an aerobic system and becomes a simple anaerobic system using less effective anaerobic bacteria. In other words, it functions as a normal septic tank and drain-field system. If it has been installed in an area with marginal or deficient natural treatment conditions, such as inappropriate soils, high-water tables, or low surface elevations, beneath the ten-year flood elevation, for instance; the sewage, which is no longer being treated aerobically, can pose a threat to public health and the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the site. The untreated or inadequately-treated sewage can rise to the surface of the property, back up in the residential toilets, or otherwise pollute ground or surface waters, if water table levels are too high. Thus, such systems would require inspection periodically to insure that they are in adequate working order, because if the mechanical system malfunctions, the system will continue to put effluent through its drain field, like a normal septic tank drain-field system, but without adequate treatment for a "low elevation" site such as this. In that circumstance, the occupants of the dwelling involved might not notice for long periods of time that the system is inoperative because it can continue to dispose of the effluent without it backing up into the residence. Accordingly, when the motor and air pump system becomes inoperative, there is less incentive for the owner to repair it. Thus, it is likely that if such a system were installed, some means would have to be found to insure that the owner keeps the system in good repair and working order. The means by which such an arrangement for insuring that an aerobic system operates properly at all times was not established in this record, however. The Department does not have the regulatory authority at the present time to conduct such periodic inspections nor the personnel or funds to do so. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to establish that reasonable alternatives to the proposed conventional OSDS exist.
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 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 28th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted, but irrelevant. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial and irrelevant. This is not a rule challenge proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 7-11. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. 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 Richard Remington 165 Forest View Drive Land O'Lakes, FL 34638 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
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
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit in consideration of the statutes and rules relating to approval of permits cited and discussed herein, or whether they are entitled to a variance from the strict requirements of those statutes and rules so as to allow the installation of the OSDS on their property near the Suwannee River. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners purchased real property located in Levy County, Florida, in 1967. That property is located in the unincorporated community of "Fowlers Bluff" on the east bank of the Suwannee River. The property is more particularly described as the west one-half of Lot 13, and the east three- quarters of Lot 14, Treasure Camp Addition, Unit 3. The lot in question is approximately 100 feet by 125 feet by 197 feet in size. There is adequate unobstructed area available for the subject system's installation, according to Respondent's Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. The lot is part of a subdivision which was platted prior to 1956. The subject lot has available a potable water source from the public water system. Consequently, the lot is of sufficient size to meet the quarter-acre minimum requirement for the installation of septic tank and drain-field systems in situations where lots have potable water available from a public water system, which is the case in this circumstance. The effective soil depth at the drain-field installation site is greater than 42 inches below the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trench or absorption bed location. That is, 72 inches of sand, which is a "slight limited soil" and appropriate for such installations, exist at the site. The wet season water table was shown to exist at 26 inches below the grade level. The wet season water table, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(2) Florida Administrative Code, must be at least 24 inches below the bottom surface of the drain-field trench or absorption bed. Consequently, the wet season water table in this situation is not sufficient in depth for the proposed installation to meet this provision of the Respondent's rules. The Petitioners seek to gain approval for a system to serve a single- family residence of approximately 2,000 heated and cooled square feet, with a "standard" 350 gallons per day sewage flow. The residence would contain three bedrooms, as presently envisioned. The Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 establishes a benchmark elevation for the grade level of the proposed OSDS installation site of 7.48 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The actual grade elevation is 0.8 feet below that benchmark elevation. That is, the elevation of the grade of the property is 6.72 feet above MSL at the proposed installation site., The ten-year flood elevation for the proposed installation site, however, is 9 feet above MSL, as verified by a report prepared by the Suwannee River Water Management District, admitted into evidence and which was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioners in the application process. The property also lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee R for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. Testimony by Mr. Parker, as well as the Respondent's evidence through Mr. May, establishes that the property in the past has had approximately 30 inches of fill placed on it. Because of this, the grade level elevation is in fairly-close proximity to the ten-year flood elevation and because of the prevailing slight limited soil type down to a depth of six feet, the property was shown to be generally amenable to installation of a mounded septic tank and drain-field disposal system, which mounding could raise the property so that the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed would not be within the ten- year flood elevation. As Mr. May indicated by letter dated March 1, 1990 to Mr. Parker, the lot could be filled utilizing slight limited soil so that a mound to contain the septic tank and drain field of no more than the required 36 inches, pursuant to Rule 10D-06.0493(b), Florida Administrative Code, might be utilized. That letter, in evidence, also indicates that if the lot, or a portion of it, is filled, the fill shall extend a minimum of 20 feet in all directions beyond the perimeter of the mound base. The lot was shown to be of sufficient size to accommodate such a perimeter area of fill. In that same letter, Mr. May advised Mr. Parker that he had the right to request a variance from the provisions of Chapter 10D-6 Florida Administrative Code, since his property, in Mr. May's view, did not meet the criteria in that regulatory chapter for the issuance of an actual permit. The record does not reflect that an actual variance application had been filed, however. It would thus seem that this property is amenable to a reasonable alternative solution to a conventional, subterranean septic tank and drain-field system by the use of the "mounding process". That alternative, however, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, would require the certification of a registered professional engineer to the effect that the installation of such a mound could be done ,in such a way as not to raise the "base flood" level. This is because the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the ,Suwannee River; and under the rule section cited last above, a `certification must be made that the base flood level will not be raised by such a mounded system installation for property lying in the regulatory floodway. The Petitioners adduced no such engineering testimony or evidence to establish that if the system were installed with the mounding process, the base flood level would not be raised. In addition to the evidence culminating in the above Findings of Fact, the Petitioners offered general testimony to the effect that they had purchased the property in question for purposes of both having a "retirement rest egg" and a place to live should they choose to live on the property. The Petitioners established that they, like numerous other OSDS permit applicants in similar proceedings, are undergoing a hardship because they purchased the property for residential purposes or for re-sale for residential purposes and cannot construct a residence and live on the property or sell it for that purpose because of the inability to obtain a permit. The Petitioners' proof, in terms of the variance criteria noted below, is inadequate to show that there are no alternative systems available which will adequately dispose of and treat the sewage to be expected, nor did the Petitioners establish that installation of the system presently proposed would only constitute a minor deviation from the requirements of the Respondent's OSDS permitting rules, in terms of having no adverse effect on the health of the Petitioners, the general public, or upon the surface or ground waters involved in the vicinity of the site. Although the Petitioners did not formally apply for a variance, no adequate proof in these two particulars was offered so as to justify the grant of a variance; however, it was established that the property was platted prior to 1972 for purposes of the relaxed consideration embodied in the variance rule and statute for this circumstance. The Respondent now asserts, however, that the Petitioners should not be accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS's within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten- year flood elevation, was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application for the subject permit, without prejudice to a later application for a variance or a later application for an OSDS permit based upon additional and changed facts and circumstances. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3695 The Petitioners submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. 9. Rejected, as immaterial. 10-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Arnold G. Parker P.O. Box 467 Chiefland, Florida 32626 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue Whether the objections of the City of Pembroke Pines and the Green Meadows Civic Association to South Broward Utility, Inc.'s, proposal to extend its water and sewer service area should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact South Broward Utility, Inc. (South Broward), is a corporation engaged in the business of providing water and wastewater service to the public in Broward County, Florida. That business is subject to regulation by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). South Broward's water and wastewater treatment facilities are located in the Town of Davie, and it currently provides water and sewer services to residents of that municipality. Included within the area of the Town of Davie currently served by South Broward are the lands bordered on the north by Sterling Road, the south by Sheridan Street, and the west by Dykes Road (S.W. 160th Avenue). On February 4, 11, and 18, 1989, South Broward published a notice of extension in the Florida Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel, a daily newspaper of general circulation published in Broward County, Florida, in accordance with Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. The notice provided that South Broward would file an application with the PSC pursuant to Section 367.061, Florida Statutes, to amend its certificates of public convenience and necessity to allow South Broward to provide water and sewer service to the east half of Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 40 East, Broward County, Florida. Such area may commonly be described as those lands lying immediately west of Dykes Road to S.W. 166th Avenue, and from Stirling Road on the north to Sheridan Street on the south. On February 24, 1989, South Broward mailed a copy of the aforementioned notice to all local, county and state governmental agencies and all other persons required by Section 367.041(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Objections to the notice were filed with the PSC by the City of Pembroke Pines (Pembroke Pines) and the Green Meadows Civic Association (Green Meadows). In its objection, Pembroke Pines contended that it had invested over 30 million dollars to expand its municipal water and sewer service west to the Conversation Area from Sheridan Street on the north to Pembroke Road on the south, that this expansion project was anticipated to provide water and sewer service for its existing municipal boundaries as well as the area proposed to be served by South Broward, that it was preparing an annexation report for the proposed area, and that if South Broward's application were approved it would be precluded from servicing its own residents should annexation occur. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that Pembroke Pines had expanded its municipal water and sewer service such that its water and wastewater treatment plants and related facilities have adequate present capacity to meet the current and anticipated future water and wastewater needs in the disputed service area. The Pembroke Pines water lines are currently located on the south side of Sheridan Street, which street forms the southerly boundary of the disputed service area. Its wastewater treatment lines are, however, located approximately one and one-half miles south of Sheridan Street and would require several months and considerable expense to extend them to the disputed service area. Notably, however, no proof was offered that Pembroke Pines had any current intention to annex the disputed service area, or that it had otherwise evidenced any intent to, or taken any action to, provide service to the area. Green Meadows is an association of residents of this area of unincorporated Broward County, some of whom reside within the service area in dispute. The gravamen of Green Meadows' objection is its concern that sewer lines for a centralized sewer system would leak into its member's ground water supply, and that the increase in population density caused by a centralized water and sewer system would adversely affect the area's ecosystem. Neither Green Meadows nor Pembroke Pines contended, however, that the subject extension of service would violate any land use plan, zoning ordinance or other state or local law, and no credible proof was offered that, if built consistent with existent law, the sewer lines would adversely impact the ground water supply or ecosystem. Until recently, all of the lands lying in the disputed service area were located in unincorporated Broward County. However, in September 1988 a parcel of approximately 15 acres which abutted Dykes Road was annexed into the Town of Davie, and in May 1989 a parcel of approximately 80 acres, which abutted the previously annexed parcel on the east, Sterling Road on the north, and S.W. 166th Avenue on the west, was annexed into the Town of Davie. These lands comprise approximately 30 percent of the lands within the disputed service area, and it is the desire of the Town of Davie that water and sewer service to such lands be provided by South Broward. To date, South Broward has entered into a developer's agreement with the owner of the 80-acre parcel to provide such services, and is in the process of executing such an agreement with the owner of the 15-acre parcel. Pembroke Pines does not object to South Broward's expansion into these areas. As to the remaining acreage within the proposed service area, the owners of the vast majority of those lands have expressed a preference for South Broward to provide water and sewer service to their properties, and South Broward has expressed its desire and ability to provide such services. South Broward's water plant has an existing capacity of 500,000 gallons per day (GPD), and has sufficient capacity to address the current need for water service in the proposed area. Upon completion of its current expansion, which is anticipated in October 1989, South Broward's water plant will have a capacity of 1,250,000 GPD, and adequate capacity to address any future demand for water service in the proposed area. South Broward's wastewater treatment plant, with a capacity of 500,000 GPD, currently has sufficient capacity to satisfy the present and future demand for such services in the proposed area. An expansion of that plant is expected to be in service by 1991, which will double the plant's capacity and provide additional capacity. Currently, South Broward has water and sewer lines adequate to serve the proposed area in place, and located under Dykes Road at the eastern edge of the service area. Such lines are adequate to meet all present and anticipated future needs for such service in the area, and the water lines are adequate to provide fire protection to the area. South Broward has the present financial, managerial, operational, and technical ability to provide the present and anticipated needs for water and wastewater service in the proposed area, and the public interest will be best served by the extension of South Broward's water and wastewater systems to that area. Such expansion will not be in competition with or a duplication of any other system in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the objections filed by Pembroke Pines and Green Meadows be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of August 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact filed by South Broward are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. 5-10. Addressed in paragraph 9. 11-14. Addressed in paragraphs 10-13. 15 & 16. Addressed in paragraphs 6 and 7. Addressed in paragraph 13. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 8. 20 & 21. Addressed in paragraph 13. The proposed findings of fact filed by the PSC are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 3, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the conclusions of law. Addressed in paragraph 8. 6-12. Addressed in paragraphs 9-13. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell S. Kraft, Esquire Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32308 Deborah Simone, President Green Meadows Civic Association 5831 S.W. 162nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33331 James L. Ade, Esquire Martin, Ade, Birchfiled & Mickler, P.A. 3000 Independent Square Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Randy Frier, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Mr. Steve Tribble, Director Records and Reporting Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Susan Clark General Counsel Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870
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 in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) should grant the Petitioner's applications, filed under F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.045, for variances from the F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.046(1)(c) requirement that on-site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS's) be placed no closer than 200 feet from public drinking water wells serving a facility with a sewage flow of more than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph DiGerlando, owns three lots (1, 2 and 26) in the San Remo subdivision in Hillsborough County, which was platted in 1977. There is a public water well located between lots 1, 2 and 26. The well serves the entire San Remo subdivision, a 55-lot residential development having a total sewage flow much greater than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) (although the sewage flow from homes built on lots 1, 2 and 26 can be expected to total no more than approximately 1350 gpd.) There is no way for the Petitioner to construct an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) on each of the three lots so that no part of any OSTDS will be closer than 200 feet from the San Remo well, measured horizontally across the ground surface to the well head. Measuring horizontally across the ground surface to the well head: an OSTDS on lot 1 could be placed no farther than 156 feet from the well; an OSTDS on lot 2 could be placed no farther than 184 feet from the well; according to drawings in the Petitioners' application, an OSTDS on lot 26 could be placed no farther than approximately 185 feet from the well. (Although lot 26 is larger than the others, it is contiguous to a surface water body, and the required setback from the surface water body decreases the area available for siting an OSTDS on the lot. The evidence was not clear exactly how far an OSTDS on lot 26 would be from the San Remo well.) HRS concedes: (1) that requiring 200-foot setbacks from the San Remo well will place the Petitioner under a hardship that was not caused intentionally by his own actions; and (2) that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage on his lots 1, 2 and 26. (It is not clear how or why HRS determined that utilization of a joint OSTDS to serve all three lots through the imposition of cross-easements on the lots would not be a reasonable alternative to at least one or two of the variance applications.) The San Remo well, which is 400 feet deep, has a steel casing from the surface of the well to 100 feet below the ground surface. The steel casing prevents the entry of ground water into the well above the bottom of the casing. If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured diagonally, through the ground, from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 185 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 209 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (The evidence was not clear exactly how much farther.) In fact, due to the draw-down effect of the well, the path groundwater would travel from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the San Remo well would curve upward somewhat from, and be somewhat longer than, the diagonal line running directly between those two points. (The evidence is not clear exactly how much longer the curved path would be.) If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured first horizontally across the ground surface to the well head and then vertically down to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 253 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 281 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (Since the bottom of the OSTDS's will be three feet below the ground surface, the vertical component of the measurement is only 97 feet instead of the full 100 feet between the well head and the bottom of the casing.) When applying the HRS rules on distances required between OSTDS's and existing public water wells, HRS measures from the OSTDS horizontally across the ground surface to the well. The evidence was that HRS's method of measurement is consistent both with the methods used by the federal EPA and with the scientific data on which the technical advisory board based the distances in the HRS rules. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that there is a 17-foot thick layer of sand and clay between 53 and 70 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the San Remo well and that the sand and clay layer would prevent contamination from the OSTDS's from reaching the bottom of the steel casing of the well. (He also testified that is a white lime rock layer between 70 and 90 feet below the ground surface and inferred that the white lime rock layer would add some degree of protection.) The opinions of the Petitioner's expert are accepted. Petitioner's expert is a civil, sanitary and environmental engineer, not a geologist or hydrogeologist; however, his experience is in the area of wastewater treatment and disposal is extensive. Meanwhile, HRS presented no competent evidence whatsoever to contradict the Petitioner's expert. The Petitioner proposes to use Norweco Singulair Bio-Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. These systems treat waste better than a standard septic tank system. Instead of the single septic tank, they have three distinct chambers: first, a retreatment chamber; second, an aeration chamber to reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total dissolved solids (TDS); and, finally, a clarification or filter chamber that further reduces BOD and TDS. With the proposed systems, BOD and TDS will be reduced to approximately a fourth of the BOD and TDS levels that would enter the drainfield from a septic tank system. In addition, unlike in a septic tank system, the proposed systems utilize chlorine tablets in conjunction with the clarification chamber to kill bacteria and viruses. It is found that the evidence presented in this case, taken as a whole (and in particular in the absence of any competent evidence to contradict the credible opinions of the Petitioner's expert) was sufficient to prove that the proposed OSTDS's would not adversely affect the health of members of the public. Except for a fleeting reference in its Proposed Recommended Order, HRS has not taken the position that the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's will significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The reference in the Proposed Recommended Order would seem to reflect that HRS's concern about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's on groundwater quality is limited to its public health concerns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order granting the Petitioner's applications for variances, on the condition that the Petitioner utilizes the proposed Norweco Singulair Bio- Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-6. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as to "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters"; HRS did not make this an issue, except with respect to public health concerns. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. However, accepted that HRS presented no evidence sufficient to support a finding on the issue. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as to "relevant criteria"; not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As found, HRS did not contend that the Petitioner's OSTDS's would "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters." HRS only raised this issue with respect to public health concerns.) 10.-12. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These were hearsay statements that were not sufficient to support findings as to the matters asserted. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994).) COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 W. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Nelson D. Blank, Esquire Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-1102 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a waste water treatment facility at Polynesian Village Mobile Home Park, owns the land at this village, leases these lots to mobile home owners, and provides them with waste water treatment. He was last issued an operating permit on January 18, 1983, by Petitioner. Respondent posted an Operational Bond (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $7,500 with Northwestern National Insurance Company as surety to faithfully operate the treatment facility and comply with all Rules and Regulations of the Petitioner. Englewood Water District, petitioner, was established by special act of the Florida Legislature in Chapter 59-931, Florida Statutes, and is given authority in Section 4 thereof to regulate use of sewers, fix rates, enjoin or otherwise prevent violations of the act or any regulation adopted by Petitioner pursuant to the act, and to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the act. Pursuant to this authority, Petitioner promulgated Waste Water Treatment Facilities Design, Construction and Operation Regulations dated June 19, 1980, and revised April 28, 1983. During an inspection of Respondent's waste water treatment facility on October 17, 1983, leaching was observed at both the north and south drain fields with effluent from the system rising to the surface. Samples of this effluent when tested showed a fecal coliform count of 2800/100 ml. The basic level of disinfectant shall result in not more than 200 fecal coliform values per 100 ml of effluent sample (Rule 17-6.060(1)(b)3a, F.A.C.). Following this test, Notice of Violation (Exhibit 4) was served on Respondent. No action was taken by Respondent to correct this condition and on January 6, 1984, a Citation (Exhibit 5) was issued to Respondent scheduling a hearing for January 26, 1984. Following the issuance of that Citation frequent inspections of the facility were conducted by employees of Respondent to ascertain if steps were being taken by Respondent to correct the deficiencies. Additionally, inspections were made by inspectors from Sarasota County Pollution Control. Inspections were conducted January 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 31; February 1, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29; and March 2, 5, 8, and 9, 1984. These inspections revealed what appears to be a "blow-out" in the south drain field where effluent bubbles to the surface and flows onto the adjacent streets and propert (Exhibits 9 and 11). Effluent tested from this source had fecal coliform counts as high as 9440/100 ml. During one of these inspections effluent from the treatment plant was being discharged directly onto the road to a drainage ditch adjacent to the plant (Exhibit 8). The coliform count of a sample taken from this ditch was 13500/100 ml. Respondent was issued a second Citation on March 2, 1984, and this hearing was held on the violations alleged in that Citation, to wit: creating a public nuisance and leaching from drain field. Respondent contends that he is dealing with the Sarasota County Engineer to correct the problems and, after failing in his attempt to get the county to provide drainage from his property, he is now in the process of installing drain pipes. Respondent contends that the natural drainage of surface waters from his land to adjacent land was stopped by development on the adjacent land and the heavy rains this winter has saturated his land and inhibited percolation in the drain fields. Accordingly, the effluent from his plant could not be absorbed by the drain field. Respondent also contends that the drain field worked fine for several years before the drainage problem arose and believes it will again work well when the drainage situation is corrected.
