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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: On May 3, 1989, Cersosimo submitted an application for a Management of Surface Water Permit to the District. Subsequent to the submission of this application, the Polk County Board of County Commissioner (Commissioners) added an additional requirement to Cersosimo's Planned Unit Development (PUD) that there was to be a pre- development/post-development match for basin runoff in the event of a twenty- four hour one hundred (100) year storm event, i.e. following completion of this project (post-development) it will handle the same outflow or flow of storm water for the twenty four-hour one hundred-year storm event as in a pre- development situation. Based on the Commissioners' requirement, the design of the PUD was amended to provide for the required storage capabilities. On July 26, 1990, Cersosimo submitted to the District, its amended application, Management of Surface Water Permit No. 405733.01 incorporating the changes necessitated due to the Commissioners' additional requirement as to storm water runoff. On August 24, 1990, Ramon E. Monreal, P.E., of the Polk County Engineering Division, noted in a letter of that same date referring to Cersosimo's modification of Retention Pond No. 300 for the project in question that "this revision appears to meet the PUD condition by the Board of County Commissioners for drainage and compliance with the Surface Water Management Ordinance". The application of July 26, 1990, amends the original application by superceding and replacing that application. In connection with the application for permit, soil borings were taken at the site location for the retention ponds in order to establish the elevation of the seasonal high water level (SHWL) for that site. The borings indicated an elevation for the SHWL of 110 feet to 112 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The District conservationally established the elevation for the SHWL of this particular site as 112 feet AMSL. The floor elevation of the lowest retention pond was established at 114.00 feet AMSL. The elevation of the surface of Lake Mabel for the ten year flood warning Level is 114.50 feet AMSL as established by Rule 40D-8.624(1)(z), Florida Administrative Code. District policy requires the floor elevation of a dry retention pond to be a minimum of one foot above the established elevation of the SHWL of that particular site. Even though the surface elevation of Lake Mabel for the Ten Year Flood Warning Level was established as 114.50 feet AMSL, there is insufficient evidence to show that there was lateral migration of water from the lake's edge to the site of the soil borings such that it was evidenced by a demarcation in the soil profile. To the contrary, the evidence shows that there were demarcations in the soil profile to establish an elevation for the SHWL for this site of 110 feet to 112 feet AMSL. The designed weir crest in the lower retention pond, Pond No. 300, has an approximate elevation of 118.50 feet AMSL which prevents water from coming over the top into the pond in the event Lake Mabel reaches the ten year flood level warning elevation of 114.50 feet AMSL. The distance from the present water edge of Lake Mabel to the bottom of Pond No. 300 would be approximately 600 feet, laterally and if the lake reached the ten year flood level warning elevation of 114.50 feet AMSL, the lake's water edge would be approximately 100 feet laterally from the bottom of Pond No. 300. There was sufficient evidence to show that even if the surface elevation of Lake Mabel reached the ten year flood level warning of 114.50 feet AMSL and the SHWL (ground water level) reached 112 feet AMSL, the retention ponds as presently proposed with a floor elevation of 114.00 feet AMSL would still percolate sufficiently, even though the percolation may be diminished from what it would be under present conditions, so that there would still be a pre- development/post-development match for basin runoff. Cersosimo can give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system as presently proposed will not diminish the capabilities of Lake Mabel to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code. Among others, the following specific conditions in pertinent part will be placed on the permit, if granted: . . . The applicant shall visually monitor the ponds on a monthly basis to ensure that the ponds are dry within 36 hours from the end of the last rainfall event. Should the ponds fail to percolate the required water quality volume per District criteria, a permit modification shall be required. . . .
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order granting the application for Management Surface Water Permit No. 405733.01, as proposed by the District. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4175 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. The Petitioner did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Cersosimo 1. - 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-7, respectively. 8. - 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 8 and 14, respectively. 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 13. 12.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 11, respectively. Respondent District adopted Respondent Cersosimo's Proposed Findings of Fact, therefore the same rulings would apply as was applied to Respondent's Cersosimo's Proposed Findings of Fact above. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine D'Andrea, Esquire Susan Dietrich, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Gary L. Gandy Omega Farm Post Office Box Omega Waverly, Florida 33887 Beach A. Brooks, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 7608 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether the City of Sarasota should be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction of a dry line sewer system through the Petitioner's neighborhood.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein the Petitioners, Becky Close, et al., were residents of the area in issue which is located both within and outside the boundaries of the City of Sarasota and in portions of Sarasota County contiguous thereto. The City of Sarasota, (City), is a municipality in Sarasota County which has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation, (Department), for a permit to construct a sewage collection/transmission system in Sarasota County which Petitioners fear will adversely impact the safe, quiet enjoyment of their property. The Department is the state agency responsible for the permitting of sewage transmission, collection, treatment and disposal in this state. The City currently owns and operates a domestic wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal system, including a wastewater treatment plant, which serves approximately 96% of the City's residents and which is authorized by a Construction Permit and Amended Consent Order issued by the Department. On or about November 30, 1990 the City applied to the Department for a permit to construct an additional collection and transmission system for wastewater. This permit, if issued, would provide for the City to construct several system extensions at various locations throughout the city and includes the construction of seven lift/pump stations and fourteen "tie-in" locations at which the existing system will be extended to the unserved areas. Upon completion, the system will serve approximately 99% of the City's residents. Accompanying the application was a set of engineering plans and specifications for the proposed project which had been signed and sealed by the City's engineers. Sometime after the application was filed, the Department requested additional information relating, inter alia, to the design of the lift stations in regard to flood conditions. On January 8, 1991, the City provided the requested information which was based in part on a flood insurance map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA). Thereafter, by Notice dated March 26, 1991, the Department indicated its intention to grant the permit application. The proposed permit specifically notes that it is for the construction of the line only and before it can be placed in service, the City must secure separate approval. Specifically, the permit conditions state: 2. This permit does not authorize the connection of these collection systems to the City of Sarasota WWTP [Wastewater Treatment Plant]. The permit shall not be construed to infer any assurance that the necessary authorization for connection shall be granted. Any such authorization shall be granted only when adequate treatment in accordance with rules, regulation, and issued permits of the Department is available for any flows transported by the systems. * * * 5. Upon completion of the system and prior to use, the permittee ... shall submit to this Department a written request ... to obtain Department approval to place the system into service, .... In addition to the terms of those specific conditions relating to the limited approval effect of this permit, the General Conditions provide: 3. ... This permit is not a waiver of or approval of any other Department permit that may be required for other aspects of the total project which are not addressed in this permit. It is clear from the language of the permit that as proposed, it does not include authorization to place the covered work into service or, for that matter, to even connect it to the existing plant. The Petitioners live within an eight block area through which one of the proposed extensions, with its lift stations, will run. Many have lived in the area for decades and have experienced periodic flooding which, for the most part, results from the inability of the drainage flow to adequately handle the large amounts of rainwater which come with storms that routinely hit the area. In addition, increased paving as a part of commercial and residential development in the area has resulted in a reduction of absorption which has contributed to the flooding. The flooding which occurs usually recedes within a couple of hours and leaves a residue. Many of the residents oppose the projected permit because they fear that if the system fails during a flood period, sewage would be ejected from the system, would mix with the flood waters, and spread across the area. When the waters receded, the residue would include waste as well. William Hartman, a resident of the areas for 35 years, who is not an expert in any pertinent field, prepared a map of the area and the watershed which drains it. In doing so, he didn't consult with anyone nor can he state the total acreage or the number of impervious or pervious areas. He does not know how much rainfall there is in either a 100 year or a 25 year storm and he cannot say if any of the photographs of flooding introduced by the Petitioners depicted a 100 year storm, the last of which occurred in 1968. Nonetheless, he is still concerned. Mr. Hartman tried to make this information available to City officials before the design of the system was started but they did not seem to be much interested in it. He also tried to present the information to the City Commission before the project was voted on, but, again, it was rejected. Another resident, Mr. Williams, built a home in the area several years ago, but before he could do so, he was required to bring in fill to build up an area on which to build. Whenever it rains, the water runs off his land and onto his neighbors' and floods their houses. Since his house is built up, he does not suffer water damage, but when it floods, he has trouble getting into and out of his property. Ms. Hartman, another neighbor, was caught outdoors in the 1971 flood which brought water up to her chest. In her opinion, if sewage were released into this kind of water, it would be revolting. The evidence of periodic flooding is also supported by Mr. Lawson, the mail carrier in the area for 10 years, whose vehicle has stalled in the high water, and Mr. Riddlemoser, a resident, who has, on occasion, been unable to drive into the area due to high water. The manager of the County's Stormwater Management Division confirms there is a flooding problem in the area. Several alternatives have been proposed to deal with it. One is emergency evacuation of the residents and another is channel modification to drain the water away. Additional development in the area can be expected and any such development is required to be designed to minimize impact downstream. Nonetheless, some additional problems might be expected. The County plans to study all the reports and come up with proposed solutions to the flooding problem. Though he cannot judge whether the Corps of Engineers' report or the FEMA report has the better flood information, he would use the Corps' figures. The County's utilities plans examiner, Mr. Cole, has visited the area and attended a residents' meeting about the flooding problem. His study of the problem generates two questions. The first is what caused the flooding, and the second is that given the existence of flooding, why allow the system to be built there? He determined that the problem is caused by the fact that the City's ditches are not cleaned out and the County's are. The solution to that is to clean the ditches. Mr. Cole reviewed the application and consulted with the Department about it. Based on the information he received, he recommended the permit be issued since the plans for the design of the system are within the guidelines established by the County Code. Therefore, the County has no objection to the line being constructed. Turning to the project proposed, those portions of the system extension which will relate to the eight block area inhabited by the Petitioners are identified in the permit application as tie in extension areas C and D, and include lift stations 75 and 76, neither of which will serve any residents outside the eight block area in question. Station 75 is to be placed to the east of Central Avenue near 42nd Street and Station 76 is to be placed east of Central Avenue near 38th Street. Petitioners are concerned that in the event of flooding as a result of heavy rains or for some other reason, the sewage line as designed is incapable of protecting them against a back-up of sewage and escape of that sewage into the flood waters in the area. Evidence presented by the City indicates that at the present time, the City's existing system wastewater treatment and disposal plant capacity is 13 million gallons per day, (MGD), and average existing wastewater flow received there is only 6.467 mgd. Even with the increase in flow created by the extension of the system to existing homes, the plant is well equipped to handle the additional flow as well as that additional flow anticipated as a result of future wastewater flow when the areas to be served by the extension are fully built up. It is clear then, that the available capacity of the plant is more than sufficient to properly treat and dispose of any additional waste water flows created when and if the proposed sewer extension is approved and placed into service even after accounting for increased residential building in the area. From a technical standpoint, the proposed system must be designed and constructed according to the technical standards contained in Water Pollution Control Federation's Manual of Practice No. 9, Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. The evidence of record clearly indicates that the proposal here, as evidenced by the plans and specifications drawn therefor, is in compliance with those technical standards and criteria. Further, the technical standards and criteria established by the Great Lakes/Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers' 1987 edition of Recommended Standard Sewage Works, also applies. The evidence of record indicates that the proposed system is in compliance with those standards as well. There is some concern as to whether privately owned property will be used for the construction of this project and the evidence indicates that this project extension for the eight block area in question will be located only on public rights of way, land owned by the City, or easements granted to the City. The evidence also demonstrates that the extension here is designed to insure the safety of the surrounding area as it pertains to runoff and other possible pollutants. In fact, the system is designed to preclude the deliberate introduction of stormwater runoff or certain other pollution such as condensate from air conditioning systems, closed system cooling water, and other sources of waste water. Specifically, both lift stations are designed to be equipped with standard receptacles for connecting portable power generating equipment to provide lift pumping capability in the event that commercial power to the area is interrupted. Both stations are also designed to discharge through the smallest possible pipes, (less than 6" in diameter), and both are designed to be equipped with risers and appropriate coupling devices at the discharge pipe so that portable pumps may be connected in the event that becomes necessary. The stations in question are designed so as to be protected from lightning and abnormal voltage surges through the affixation of lightning arresters and surge capacitors. They are designed to be equipped with phase protection and will incorporate a stand-by pumping capability to be utilized with off line power generation so that they will continue to operate even in the event of a shutdown of commercial power. The stations are equipped with locking components and barriers designed to discourage the intrusion into the station by unauthorized people or by animals, and are enclosed and designed so as to eliminate, as much as possible, any odor which might be offensive or harmful to the residents in the area. In addition, the stations are designed so as to minimize noise through the incorporation of submersible pumps. What is more, recognizing the fact that the locations of the stations have a high water table, the stations were designed so as to remain in place even when empty. In that regard, the bottom slab is designed to be broader than the overlying body of the station so that the weight of the dirt above the slab will hold the station in place. Taken together, then, the evidence indicates, and it is so found, that the proposed system extension has been designed consistent with sound engineering practices so that it will accomplish its purpose in an environmentally sound manner. A primary concern of the residents is that the City has failed to account for flooding conditions which occur in the eight block area. In support of their concerns, Petitioners introduced several photographs purporting to show flooding into evidence, yet the photographs were not specifically identified as to which flood and under what conditions the scenes represented thereon took place. The City presented expert testimony based on varying sources of information including FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. Both are sources that engineers would rely upon to determine flood elevations in the course of designing a sewer system. This evidence indicates that both lift stations would not be located in those areas depicted in the flooding photographs presented by the Petitioners. By way of background, floods are categorized in year configurations. For example, a "25 year flood", is one in which the water level is likely to occur at least once over a 25 year period. By the same token, a "100 year flood" is one in which the water level is likely to occur at least once over a 100 year period. A 25 year or 100 year flood incorporates conditions caused by "flash flooding", a term used to depict a very rapidly occurring flood which arises without warning. Use of the two flood elevation maps, that by FEMA and that by the Corps of Engineers, creates a discrepancy, however. The FEMA map indicates the stations are not located within either the 25 or 100 year flood zones. On the other hand, the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance report indicates they are. The Corps of Engineers report indicates that the 25 year flood elevation at station 75 is approximately 15.2 feet above sea level, and the 100 year elevation at that site is approximately 15.9 feet above sea level. The Mobilife engineering report, which describes actual water levels at particular locations in the eight block area during the 1962 flood, recognized as a 100 year flood, (and which considers stations 75 and 76 to be within the 100 year flood zone), shows the 100 year flood water at station 75 reached approximately 16.2 feet, the same as at station 76. Regardless of which flood level is considered accurate, however, the City's evidence shows that the electrical components in both stations, those components sensitive to water, are contained within a control panel which is sealed for protection from the weather. Further, it must be noted that the bottom of the electrical control panel is at an elevation of 18.3 feet at station 75 and at 17.7 feet at station 76. Consequently, whether one uses the FEMA/COE figures for water level or the Mobilife figures for a 100 year flood, the fact remains that the sensitive electrical components would be well above high water in either case. It is clear, then, that the design of both lift stations sufficiently addresses the potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding. The system is designed so that those components sensitive to flooding will be placed above the expected high water marks, and the mechanical components are designed for submerged use and are not generally affected by flood conditions. The lift stations are designed so that they will be protected from damage by wind or water and should remain fully accessible and operational during either a 25 or a 100 year flood. This evidence presented by the City was neither contradicted or rebutted by any evidence submitted by Petitioners. Even if, however, there should be a flood elevation higher than those predicted by either FEMA or the Corps or Engineers, it would be relatively easy and inexpensive, to raise the control panels even higher at those lift stations to correct any problem that might arise. There are, in addition, safeguards designed into the system which will alert the population to problems occurring in the pump function. Visual alarms are installed which will alert passersby or staff from the utility to the fact that the pumps are not operating properly. In addition, the design of both stations incorporates a reserve capacity which is sufficient to provide the City with sufficient time to correct any failures, electrical or mechanical, which might occur before damage can take place. Specifically, the design at station 75 will provide additional capacity of approximately 24 hours at maximum build-out before a back-up can be expected to occur. At station 76, this reserve capacity will permit 2.26 days of additional operation before a problem takes place and this also assumes maximum build-out. Under those circumstances, if a failure should occur at either station, there would be ample time for the City to utilize temporary electrical or pumping activities to prevent a back-up from occurring. The City contends that if flood conditions were to occur at either station that were not corrected and which resulted in the unlikely backup of sewage, the impact of such backup on residents in the area would be minimal. Its rationalization is based on the supposition that if flood conditions causing such a back-up were to occur, they would result in the Petitioners evacuating the area, and therefore, they would not be impacted. This would relate, of course, only to the impact on personal safety, but not to potential impacts such as loss of property or secondary safety consideration. This argument, which is not significant, is not considered pertinent and is rejected. Were a failure to occur at lift station 75 that resulted in sewage back-up, that back-up would occur at the lowest point in the system, the manhole at 40th Street. If a similar failure resulted in a backup in system 76, the back-up would be at 39th Street. In either case, the City claims, the back-up would not reach customers' homes. This argument, too, though not rebutted by the Petitioners, appears not to consider all the potential impacts such as odor, appearance, and the like which, while not necessarily accompanied by sewage entering the home, is, nonetheless, adverse in impact if located in the immediate area of those homes. Other factors are also pertinent to a study of the safety and propriety of the project include the fact that the system extension is designed in such a fashion as to adequately address the forces of water movement. It is also noted that the system does not include any intersection with force mains; it does not include any stub-outs on existing force mains since it is designed to accommodate the service area at full build-out. The City does not anticipate that the system will involve any sewage pipes intersections with water mains, but if such mains are encountered, the project plans contain instructions to the contractor to afford appropriate protection. The program does not envision any intersection between sewer lines, storm mains or water mains, and the project has been designed so that manhole settling and pipe settling should be minimized. In the event there is settling, however, the project proposes the use of flexible pipe and pipe connectors to minimize any damage that might result therefrom. In that regard, the project calls for the use of flexible, water-tight, wall-to-pipe joints which would compensate for any remaining differential or stress. Normal operation and maintenance will be enhanced by the use of standard size manholes in the system. Since the proposed system is not designed to cross any waterways or canals subject to maintenance dredging, there should be no damage by virtue of those activities. In addition, there is little likelihood that any part of the system could be damaged by boat anchors or by interface with underwater sewage lines. Taken together, the system appears to be well designed and compatible with accepted engineering standards. All foreseeable contingencies appear to have been provided for and the risk of back-up and resultant damage to the property or safety of residents in the area has been minimized.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered issuing Permit No. CS 58-189732, for the dry line construction of an expansion to the City's existing domestic wastewater collection/transmission system, as outlined in the Department's Notice of Intent dated March 27, 1991. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 26th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2470 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONERS: None submitted FOR THE CITY: 1.- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4.- 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Not a proper Finding of Fact. 12.- 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15.- 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17.- 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21.- 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29.- 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35.- 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38.- 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45.- 50. Accepted and incorporated herein. 51.- 55. Accepted and incorporated herein. 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted and incorporated herein. 58. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 59.- 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66.- 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70.- 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74.- 79. Accepted and incorporated herein. 80.- 87. Accepted and incorporated herein. 88.- 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90.- 95. Accepted and incorporated herein. 96. Rejected as not a appropriate Finding of Fact. 97.- 99. Accepted and incorporated herein. 100.-114. Accepted and incorporated herein. 115.-118. Accepted. 119. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 120.-123. Accepted. 124. Just a comment on the evidence. 125. Accepted. 126.-128. Merely a comment on the evidence. 129. Accepted. 130 -131. Merely a comment on the evidence. 132.-133. Accepted and incorporated herein. 134.-136. Accepted. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: 1.- 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7.- 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12.- 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20.- 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26.- 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38.- 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. 43.- 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50.- 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Becky Close 1380 42nd Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 William Hartman 1325 41st Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 Robert Rhoades 1335 40th Street Sarasota, Florida 34234 David M. Caldevilla, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. P.O. Box 172537 Tampa, Florida 33672-0537 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners' application for an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Paula and David Caywood, are the owners of Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. The subject lot is situated within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin. On August 13, 1990, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home which they desired to place on the subject lot. As an attachment to their OSDS application, Petitioners introduced a copy of a survey of their lot which was prepared by Walton F. Poppell, a Florida registered land surveyor who holds registration number 2940. The ground elevation for the ten year flood plain for the subject area where Petitioners propose to install their OSDS is 68.0 ft. A review of the land survey presented by Petitioners indicate that the proposed OSDS would be at a ground elevation of 63.8 ft. and when completed would be placed at a ground level of 65.64 ft. or 2.36 ft. below the elevation of the ten year flood plain. Although the Petitioners lot is not subject to frequent flooding, since 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. Petitioners have not applied for a variance to install their OSDS within the ten year flood plain of the Suwannee River Basin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioners application to install an OSDS to service a two-bedroom home on Lot 54, Timber Pines Subdivision, Unit 1, in Madison County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David and Paula Caywood 9320 Horizon Drive Springhill, Florida 34608 John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District II Legal Office 2639 N. Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire Acting 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 the Petitioner is entitled to a variance from the permitting rule requirements so as to authorize installation of an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") on his property in Columbia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns certain real property in Columbia County, Florida, in a subdivision known as "Three Rivers Estates, Unit 5, Lot 33". The property is at "River Mile 7" of the Santa Fe River, as measured by the Suwannee River Water Management District; and the subdivision was platted and recorded in 1962. The lot in question is 400 feet by 90 feet in dimensions and is located approximately 300 feet from the surface waters of the Santa Fe River. The applicant/Petitioner desires to install an OSDS merely for the purpose of serving his motor home when he vacations on the lot in question, because the Columbia County Ordinance involved requires that a residential-type septic system be installed and operating before a resident can obtain electric power to his lot, even for use with a motor home. The original permit application and the variance were denied because the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation for the pertinent river mile of the Santa Fe River, where the property in question is located, and because the site has only 27 inches of soil between the surface grade and a solid limerock stratum which lies under the area. Only 10 inches of that 27 inches of soil is suitable for use as part of an OSDS, being of a sandy quality. The remainder of the soil is of a dense, impervious, gray clay, which is not suitable as a treatment medium for OSDS's. It is undisputed that the property surface grade elevation at the proposed installation site is 22.66 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The ten-year flood elevation at the site is 31.0 feet above MSL. Therefore, the installation site is approximately 8.33 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. Thus, the proposed installation site cannot meet the requirements of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, with regard to the definitional standards in that provision, to the effect that the site in question cannot be subject to frequent flooding, as measured by ten-year flood elevations for the site. There was no showing by the Petitioner that installation of an OSDS at the site, given the above- mentioned soil depth and characteristics, the fact that the property in question is below the ten-year flood elevation, would not pose an adverse effect on the public health, the health of the applicant/Petitioner or his guests or invitees, nor that adverse impacts on the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site, in terms of pollution contamination, will not be occasioned by installation of an OSDS on the lot in question, in terms of a conventional, beneath-surface-grade-type system. The Petitioner proposes, however, the use of a "mounded system", which involves the installation of fill soil above the present grade level, so that a sufficient depth of appropriate treatment soil (42 inches) will exist between the bottom of the drain-field trenches and the water table, which in the instant case, means the limerock layer which lies just above the water table. The problem with such a mounded system, however, is that pertinent Department rules contained in Section 10D-6.043-.049, Florida Administrative Code, regarding the slope and basal area configuration of such mounded systems, reveal that the subject lot is too narrow to install a mound of sufficient height to raise the OSDS and the bottom surface of its drain-field trenches above the ten-year flood elevation. This is because, even though a lower mound of approximately 3 feet in height could be installed to raise the drain-field trenches the required 42 inches above the water table, the 3-foot mounded system would still be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. A mound approximately 10'2" high above surface grade would be required to raise the OSDS a sufficient amount to get it above the ten-year flood elevation. It might be said that the proposed 3-foot mound, which would give sufficient treatment soil beneath the drain-field trenches, would constitute only a "minor deviation" from the permitting requirements of Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation parameter. Thus, in the instant situation, it might be an appropriate alternative system justifying the granting of a hardship variance based upon a minor deviation from the permitting rules. However, the Petitioner did not prove that such would amount to a minor deviation. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that the use of such a system would pose no threat or adverse impact on the ground or surface waters at the site involved nor to the public health. While the septic tank and drain fields in such a 3-foot-mounded system might work, the likelihood of frequent flooding would render the system unsafe from an environmental standpoint, as delineated in the rules, because it would be subject to frequent flooding. Because of the threat of frequent flooding by such a low-mounded system, it cannot be said to be a minor deviation justifying the granting of a hardship variance. Further, Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, requires that when a mounded system is to be constructed in a "regulatory flood-way", a certified engineer performing appropriate calculations and other-engineering techniques must establish that the installation of the mound in the regulatory flood-way will not raise the level of the "base flood". Evidence of such engineering calculations, which would show that the base flood level will not be altered by installation of any sort of mounded system, has not been offered in this record, however. This further militates against any finding that installation of even a 3-foot mounded system would constitute a minor deviation from the permitting rules contained in Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the property and the site in question lies within the regulatory flood-way of the Santa Fe River. Thus, in terms of the proposed variance, there has been proof that use of a 3-foot mound beneath the ten-year flood elevation, or a mound which would raise the OSDS proposed above the ten-year flood elevation, would only be a "minor deviation" from the permitting rules, which are designed to protect public health and the ground or surface waters involved from pollution. In fact, it was not shown how such an alternative system would insure the protection of the ground or surface waters involved from any adverse impact caused by pollution from OSDS effluent nor how such an alternative system would operate and still safeguard the public health and the ground or surface waters involved.
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 Department denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the permitting statutes and rules at issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 10th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. 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 Michael S. Kochan 9360 Craven Road Unit 1401 Jacksonville, FL 32257 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent Leon County School Board should be issued a dredge and fill permit to excavate and backfill in connection with the installation of sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County.
Findings Of Fact On April 13, 1989, the Board submitted a permit application to DER for the dredge and fill permit which forms the basis for this proceeding. The project represented in the dredge and fill application consisted of installation of two sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette. Installation would be accomplished by excavating and backfilling two trenches, each approximately 50 feet long by four feet wide by two feet deep. The pipes to be installed in the trenches adjacent to Buck Lake Road are one 15-inch gravity main and one 14-inch force main. A total of 15 cubic yards of soil was proposed for excavation and replacement. The project area consisted of less than 100 square feet. The Alford Arm in the project's vicinity is a canal dredged in the 1920's and 1930's. Neither the Alford Arm nor Lake Lafayette constitute Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), instead these water bodies are Class III Waters. On April 14, 1989, DER staff conducted an inspection of the project site, completed a permit application appraisal of the project, and issued permit no. 371633191 for the project. On the same day, the permit was withdrawn when it was discovered that the document had been signed by an unauthorized official. On April 20, 1989, DER again issued permit no. 371633191 to the Board for the project. The dredging, pipe installation, and backfilling were subsequently completed. Water Quality Since the dredging and filling could potentially produce short-term turbidity in the Alford Arm as a result of sediment entering the water, a specific condition of the permit required the placement of a row of staked hay bales downstream from the project site prior to construction and thereafter until re- vegetation of the site had occurred. By compliance with this turbidity control measure, reasonable assurance was provided by the Board that violations of state water quality standards would not result from the project construction. The project did not cause any violations of DER water quality criteria for turbidity or any other water quality criteria. Numerous technological advances and safeguards built into the sewer lines and lift stations make probability of any leakage very remote. Petitioner's concern with regard to potential for leakage from the collection system lines and the lift stations to cause water quality problems in the Alford Arm is not supported by any competent substantial evidence of record regarding statistical frequency and probability of such occurrences. Further, there is no such evidence of infirmities regarding design soundness or the functional history of the pipe used in the project. Public Interest DER evaluated the project in accordance with the criteria of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, prior to issuance of the permit. Another review has now been completed approximately two years after completion of the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on public health, safety, welfare, or property of others. Likewise, the project has not caused adverse impacts on significant historical or archaeological resources. Similarly, no adverse impacts on the conservation of fish or wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats has or will result from the project. Interestingly, woodstorks have been observed feeding in the very vicinity of the project as recently as May 28, 1991, more than two years after completion of the project. No adverse impacts have or will be visited upon navigation or flow of the water. No harmful erosion or shoaling has or will result from the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on fishing, recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The impacts of this dredge and fill project were temporary. The dredged and filled area has re-vegetated with the same species, pickerelweed and smartweed. Wetland functions of the site that existed prior to the project were minimal and have been re-established. Cumulative And Secondary Impacts Cumulative impacts from similar projects were not evidenced at the final hearing. There are no projects proposed which are closely linked or causally related to the dredge and fill project. The only non-speculative secondary impact from the project was possible leakage of wastewater from the collection system lines and lift station. The probability of such leakage is very low. Particularly in view of the geographical area, engineering design and manufacture of the pipes and waste collection system, such probability is speculative and minimal or non-existent in the absence of competent substantial evidence regarding statistical frequency of such an event. The construction of the sewage collection system with which the project is associated is a result of growth in the geographic area. While the project has not been established to induce growth in the area, such development would not affect Lake Lafayette since the collection system currently installed has a 400 gallon per minute capability, or the ability to serve 400 residential connections. Prior to issuance of the dredge and fill permit, 800 existing residential lots were platted along Buck Lake Road within two miles east and two miles west of the project site. Since the system could be upgraded to accommodate 1600 residential units, the potential increase that could result from the project in any event is an additional 800 residential units. If these additional residences are built at the very high density of one per quarter acre, these lots would cover only approximately two-thirds of a square mile or less than one percent of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin of approximately 80 square miles. Such development would have no measurable impact on Lake Lafayette.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered approving the issuance of permit number 371633191 to the Board. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2752 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None Submitted. Respondent Board's Proposed Findings: 1.-17. Adopted in substance. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings: 1.-24. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Terri Saltiel 7769 Deep Wood Trail Tallahassee, FL 32311 Richard A. Lotspeich, Esq. John T. LaVia, III, Esq. P.O. Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Donaldson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing installation of an OSDS on property which Petitioner owns near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with Section 8l.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an owner, by joint tenancy, of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Government Lot 1, Section 4, Township 11 South, Range 13 East; closely proximate to the Suwanee River at a location generally known as "New Pine Landing". The surrounding property is characterized by homes and mobile home,;, which have OSDS's installed and operating. The subject property has no improvements constructed thereon, although the Petitioner intends the placement of a 12X60 foot mobile home, containing two bedrooms and one bathroom. There is no OSDS of any type installed on the property at the present time. The subject property is approximately 18.5 acres in size. It was purchased on January 17, 1990, but the property in question has never been platted. On March 20, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property, which was denied by the Respondent's letter of denial dated April 23, 1990. The Petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to pursue an informal variance application through the variance procedure set up by the statute and rules cited hereinbelow. Rather, the Respondent, in its denial letter, indicated that, because of the perceived effect of the Governor's Executive Order, discussed hereinbelow, no variances were being granted and the variance procedure would be "bypassed" in favor of affording the Petitioner a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings concerning the permit denial. The Petitioner testified generally concerning the character of the property in question and the general nature of the terrain and vegetation. The property is characterized by a wetland or swampy area at one end of the property and, in the area of the proposed installation site, the ground elevation is higher, with a benchmark elevation of 8.8 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"), as established by Herbert H. Raker, certified land surveyor, and depicted by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 in evidence. The Petitioner offered no testimony concerning the ground water levels, other than to say that at one point in time, he dug a three-foot-deep hole on the subject property near the septic tank installation site and observed no water in the hole. His testimony did not indicate at what season of the year the observation was made nor whether conditions were wet or dry at the time. The only concrete evidence concerning ground water level at this installation site was that offered by the Respondent, which indicates that the ground water level at the time of the site evaluation was 42 inches below the surface of the property in question at the proposed installation site and, through observation of "mottling1, of the soil, indicating the presence of dampness, that the wet season water table is 12 inches below the surface of the property. Likewise, the Petitioner professed to have no knowledge of the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Respondent's evidence, derived from materials submitted by the Petitioner in furtherance of the application, consisting of a report from the Suwanee River Water Management District, establishes that the ten-year flood elevation is 14 feet above MSL for Suwanee River Mile 29, which corresponds to the location of the subject property. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway administered by the Suwanee River Water Management District. Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that before a mounded system for on-site sewage disposal can be installed, a certification by a registered engineer would be necessary to determine that installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence has been offered in this proceeding, however. The Petitioner further testified in a general sense that it would be a hardship not to be able to) install the OSDS on the property, given the money paid to purchase the property and the intent by the Petitioner to use it for a residence. The Petitioner has no use for the property without being able to use it for a residence. The Petitioner, however, did not offer any testimony or evidence concerning alternatives to installing the proposed OSDS, nor did the Petitioner establish that installation of such a system or an alternative system would pose no adverse health effects on the Petitioner or members of the general public nor that it would pose no degradation to the surface or ground waters involved for purposes of the Petitioner establishing entitlement to a permit or a variance It should be remembered, however, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances, or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. This leads to its advising the Petitioner that to apply for a variance in this instance would be futile. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such system; beneath the ten-year flood elevation was entered on January 17 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit without prejudice to the Petitioner applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above; and without prejudice to pursuing an OSDS permit application at a later time should the Petitioner become able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question can feasibly be performed within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3120 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-9. Accepted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mary Ann White and Inman White P.O. Box 756 Old Town, Florida 32680 Frances Childers, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for a variance from agency rules governing daily domestic sewage flow so as to authorize an increase in the number of seats for his restaurant located in Howey in the Hills, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Fletcher C. Bishop, Jr., is the owner of a parcel of property located at Lot 22, Block C-2, Lakeshore Heights Subdivision, 102 South Palm Avenue, Howey in the Hills, Florida. The property consists of .0946 acre, or approximately one-tenth of an acre, and is one of several parcels located in Block C-2. Since January 1997, the property has been leased to Robert P. Jencic, who now operates a pizza restaurant on the premises known as Hungry Howies Pizza Shop. According to Jencic, he has a contract to purchase the property from Bishop at the end of his lease, or on March 1, 1998. Whether the property was actually purchased by Jencic on that date is not of record. Lakeshore Heights Subdivision is not served by a central wastewater treatment system; rather, each lot is served by a septic tank and drainfield system. Lot 22 adjoins several other commercial or business establishments situated on Lots 20, 21, 23, and 23A in the western half of Block C-2, and all share a common drainfield easement located to the rear of the lots. Except for Lot 20, all lots have tied into the drainfield and now use the easement for waste disposal purposes. Because they share a common easement, each lot has been allocated a portion of the easement for its respective septic tank and drainfield. In Petitioner's case, he has been allocated approximately 990 square feet. After Jencic signed a commitment in January 1997 to lease and purchase the property, he made extensive renovations in order to convert the property to a restaurant. On or about February 20, 1997, Jencic met with a representative of the Lake County Health Department, an agency under the direction and control of Respondent, Department of Health (Department). At that time, Jencic filed an application for a site evaluation concerning the replacement of the existing onsite sewage disposal system. The application noted that he intended to operate a pizza restaurant with 56 proposed seats. On February 21, 1997, a site evaluation was conducted by Robin Gutting, a Lake County Department of Health environmental supervisor. According to her report [t]he property size of 4120 square feet with available central water will allow a maximum 236 gallons of sewage flow per day . . . This will allow a 12 seat restaurant using single service articles and operating less than 16 hours per day. . . The size of the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System would be a minimum 900 gallon tank with 197 square feet of drainfield trench configuration. (emphasis added) Jancic received a copy of the report on or about March 12, 1997, and it clearly conveyed to him the fact that he could operate no more than 12 seats in his restaurant due to sewage flow limitations on his property. Despite being on notice that the restaurant would be limited to only 12 seats due to the lot flow restrictions, on March 19, 1997, Jencic filed an application with the Lake County Health Department for a construction permit to replace the existing septic tank with a 900 gallon septic tank, install a 900 gallon grease trap, and utilize a 197 square-foot primary drainfield and a 200 square-foot bed system. The application indicated that Jencic intended to operate a restaurant "for 12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." On May 28, 1997, Jencic's application was approved for "12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." After installing the new tank and grease trap, Jencic began restaurant operations subject to the above restrictions. After operating his pizza restaurant for a short period of time, Jencic determined that he could generate a profit only if the restaurant could be expanded to allow more seats, and he could use china and silverware (full service articles) rather than single service articles (throwaway utensils). To do this, however, he would need a larger sewage treatment system. By letter dated November 9, 1997, Jencic requested a variance from various Department standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems so as to "increase the seating from 12 seats to a maximum of 36 seats and [authorize] the use of china, silverware, and dishes." Although the letter does not refer to any rules, the Department has treated the letter as seeking a variance from three of its rules found in Part I, Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. First, Rule 64E-6.001(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an establishment cannot exceed the lot flow allowances authorized under Rule 64E-6.005(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. If the seating capacity in the restaurant were increased, Jencic would exceed the lot flow allowances in violation of this rule. Second, Rule 64E-6.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the manner in which a determination of lot densities shall be made. Among other things, daily sewage flow cannot exceed an average of 2,500 gallons per day per acre. The easement which Petitioner shares with other lots is far less than an acre, even counting the space allocated to the adjoining lots. Finally, Rule 64E-6.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that minimum design flows for systems serving a structure shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined by Table I of the rule. That table specifies an estimated daily sewage flow of 20 gallons per seat for restaurants using single service articles only and operating less than 16 hours per day. Therefore, a 12-seat restaurant with those operating characteristics would require a system that could handle at least 240 gallons of sewage flow per day. The table further provides that a restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day with full service will generate an estimated sewage flow of 40 gallons per seat. Thus, a restaurant with up to 36 seats, as Jencic has requested, would require a system handling at least 1,440 gallons of sewage flow per day. In order to qualify for a variance, an applicant must show that (a) the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; (b) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and (c) the discharge from the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. In its letter denying the variance, the Department asserts that Jancic has failed to show that items (a) and (c) have been satisfied. Jencic, who recently immigrated to this country, will suffer considerable financial hardship if the request for a variance is denied. Indeed, he demonstrated at hearing that his life savings have been invested in the restaurant, and his parents have placed a substantial mortgage on their property to assist him in his endeavor. If he does not purchase the property as required by his contract, he will be forced to restore the property to its original condition at great expense. In short, given his investment in renovations and equipment, unless the restaurant is expanded, he fears he must file for bankruptcy. Both parties agree that Jancic will suffer a hardship if the variance is not approved. However, Jancic was aware of the lot flow limitations before he made application to replace the existing septic tank in March 1997, and well before he began operating the restaurant in May 1997. Unfortunately, then, it must be found that the hardship was intentionally created by Jencic's own actions. If the variance were approved, it would result in a much larger amount of sewage being discharged into the easement, which could not handle that amount of flow. This in turn could cause the system to fail, thus creating a sanitary nuisance and the leaching of sewage into the groundwater. In this respect, Jancic has failed to show that the discharge will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. Jencic offered into evidence a summary of his water usage during a representative period in 1997. That document indicated that metered water usage was approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons per month, even when he temporarily (and without authority) expanded his restaurant to 24 seats during a recent two-month period to test water consumption at the higher seating capacity. However, because the sewage strength of a restaurant is far greater than that of a residence, a sewage system must be sized on estimated waste flow, and not metered water flow rates. Therefore, the fact that Jancic's monthly metered water usage is less than 4,000 gallons is not relevant to a determination of the issues. The same finding must be made with respect to Jancic's well-intentioned efforts to decrease water flow by installing high pressure toilets and timed spring systems on his hand sinks. Jencic also requested that he be allowed "spike time" during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., which are his peak hours of the day. In other words, the undersigned assumes that he is asking that consideration be given to the fact that he has virtually no business during the other hours of the working day, and that the flow during the peak hours alone would not be excessive on a daily basis. However, the Department's rules are calculated to maximum usage, and thus a "spike" allowance is not allowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert P. Jencic 102 South Palm Avenue Howey in the Hills, Florida 34737 Marya Reynolds Latson, Esquire Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478 James Hardin Peterson, III, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether respondents should have a civil penalty imposed against them for failing to repair allegedly faulty on-site sewage disposal units.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondents, Carl L. and Deborah J. Forrester, have resided on Lem Turner Road in Callahan, Nassau County, Florida, since December 1988. Their home is serviced by two underground sewage disposal systems, both located in the back yard and installed prior to 1983. In the fall of 1991, Betty Bailey and her now deceased husband began construction of a new home on the lot adjacent to the Forresters. The home was completed in early 1992. As a result of a complaint filed by Bailey with the Nassau County Public Health Unit, which is an arm of respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), respondents were required to obtain a construction permit to repair their sewage disposal systems. Because HRS concluded that respondents did not repair their systems as required by the permit, it contends they should be assessed a civil penalty until the violations are corrected, but that such fine not exceed $1500. This preliminary decision is embodied in an administrative complaint issued against respondents in early 1993. The street on which respondents live, Lem Turner Road, runs in a north- south direction. Beginning at the northern end of the block and going south are the Lindemann, Forrester, Bailey, and Campbell home sites, respectively. The natural slope of the land runs north to south so that water runs from the Lindemann property, which is the high point on the block, south over the Forrester property, then over the Bailey property, and finally through the Campbell property and into a small pond on an adjacent lot. Directly behind the Forrester lot is a home owned by Susan Lewis and her husband while Ronald K. Earl's home is located on a 3-acre home site directly behind Bailey's lot. There is also a sod farm which lies to the south and east of the block and, at its closest point, is no more than seventeen hundred feet from the Earl property. Since there is no central wastewater treatment plant, each of the homes in this area must use an individual sewage disposal unit (septic tank and drainfield). It is noted that because of the low elevation in the area, and the seasonal high water table elevation, at least 95 percent of all new systems currently installed in Callahan must use a septic tank with a mound-type of drainfield. When the Baileys were constructing their home, Betty Bailey noticed that the elevation of her property was lower than the Forresters' lot, and the area in the back yard immediately adjacent to the Forresters' property line was always "wet" and "mushy". Indeed, it was so wet that on occasion construction trucks would get stuck. She also observed water bubbling up out of the Forresters' yard adjacent to her property line. In an effort to eliminate the wet area, Bailey added a considerable amount of fill dirt to her lot and sodded the area. She recalls adding some twenty loads or so while Carl Forrester says it was much more than that. In any event, the elevation on her lot increased to a height slightly greater than that of the Forrester lot, and this changed the natural flow of stormwater runoff from over her lot to a ditch which straddles her property line. Even so, she says the fill and sod did not correct the wet condition near the property line and it still remained wet as of the date of hearing. After moving into her home in February 1992, Bailey began noticing a sewage odor emanating from the soggy area of ground running from her back yard to the Forresters' back yard. The odor, which was worst in the evening and when it rained, was so bad that it prevented her from using her screened back porch and swimming pool in the evening or entertaining friends outside. The condition still existed as of the date of hearing. Bailey spoke to Carl Forrester about the odor and mushy ground on several occasions. Once he told her there was an underground spring causing the wet ground and suggested she install a french drain system to convey stormwater runoff from her back yard. He also suggested the odor was caused by the nearby sod farm which used manure to fertilize the sod. Bailey contacted the Nassau County Public Health Unit on March 2, 1992, and requested that it check out the source of the problem. Shortly thereafter, Stanley Stoudenmire, a Nassau County environmental health care specialist, inspected the area where respondents' property abuts the Bailey property and observed "mushy" ground, standing water, flies, and bright green algae growth. He also smelled hydrogen sulfide, which is indicative of a failing drainfield, and observed water coming out of the ground. Without the need to take water samples, Stoudenmire identified the pooling liquid as effluent flowing from respondents' drainfields. All of these conditions were indicative of a failed sewage system and constituted a sanitary nuisance. It is noted that an improperly operating system is a threat to human life and safety since it can cause a number of diseases. After advising Carl Forrester that there was a problem with his drainfield, Stoudenmire was told by Forrester that his systems had been checked out by two septic tank firms and nothing was wrong. Nonetheless, Stoudenmire advised Forrester to repair the systems. Stoudenmire continued to monitor the situation and even ran a red dye test on one visit. This produced no evidence of a faulty system, but the test is not a conclusive indicator of a failed system. After Bailey continued to make complaints and further inspections revealed that no repairs had been made, Stoudenmire advised Forrester by letter dated July 9, 1992, that he must obtain a permit to correct the systems. On July 13, 1992, Carl Forrester made application for a permit. The application required him to make a site and soil evaluation and prepare a drawing of the proposed corrections. The next day, Stoudenmire conducted a soil and site evaluation on the Forrester property as an aid to them in determining the type of repairs that they needed and the specifications for the drainfield. According to the soil borings, which were not contradicted, the bottom of the existing drainfields were not separated from the seasonal high water table elevation by at least twelve inches, as required by Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Further, the area had a clay subsurface, which means that water percolation is not good. On July 16, 1992, respondents made application for a construction permit. The permit contained specifications consistent with Stoudenmire's evaluation and required respondents to disconnect both existing systems and install a mound-type drainfield, like that in Betty Bailey's back yard, so that the required 12-inch separation could be achieved. The permit required the work to be completed within ninety days. On September 15, 1992, Stoudenmire advised respondents by letter that they "had not notified (his) office of any efforts to correct the problem". They were told that unless corrective action was taken within ten days, "legal action would be pursued". On October 26, 1992, a second letter was sent to the Forresters by Stoudenmire advising them that he continued to receive complaints, that the repairs may have been done in "an illegal manner", and that they had "5 days from receipt of this notice to contact (him) for an inspection." In November 1992, Carl Forrester made certain "repairs", but they were not of the type required under the permit. Instead, he installed a french drain system, consisting of a 55-gallon drum, an electric pump and a drain pipe, which simply conveyed stormwater runoff and effluent from his back yard to a percolation system in his front yard. Bailey says that, as a result of these "repairs", she can now smell the sewage odor emanating from the front yard. Forrester also placed lime on the soggy area and sprayed the same area with a chemical. On November 26, 1992, HRS issued another warning letter to the Forresters stating that it was "imperative" that they "cooperate and respond immediately" due to continued complaints by Bailey. Stoudenmire also returned to the site and once again observed insects and "mushy ground", caused by a combination of effluent and stormwater, and could smell a raw sewage odor in an area which straddled the Forrester-Bailey property line. These conditions were the same as those previously observed on prior inspections, were indicative of a failed sewage disposal system, and constituted a sanitary nuisance. There is no evidence that the conditions had been corrected as of the date of hearing. During this same period of time, Susan Lewis, who lives directly behind the Forresters, occasionally smelled a raw sewage odor, especially in the evening, coming from the Forresters' back yard. When she spoke with Carl Forrester about the odor, he told her that he was aware of the problem, had "no doubt" there was sewage "going to" the Bailey property, but denied it was from his systems. However, he also told her he intended to correct the problem. Testimony by two other neighbors established that they do not smell any foul odors coming from the Forrester property but that when climatic conditions are just right, they can smell an odor from the nearby sod farm. However, it is found that the odor smelled by Stoudenmire, Bailey and Lewis comes from the Forresters' faulty drainfields and is different from that occasionally caused by the sod farm. Respondents do not want to incur the cost of disconnecting their two existing systems and installing an unsightly mound system, which would cost almost $3,000.00. In addition, Carl Forrester says that the trucks and equipment used to install a mound system would cause another $2,000.00 in driveway and landscape damage. Because of this, Forrester contends he will sell his home before installing a mound system. Forrester also blamed the newly added fill on Bailey's lot, which disrupted the natural flow of water, for causing the standing water on his property. However, there was no evidence that this condition caused the drainfields to operate in a faulty manner. Forrester also said four septic tank firms found his systems to be in compliance with HRS rules. But this testimony is hearsay in nature and cannot be used to make a finding in his favor. Finally, he blamed part of the odor on a rotting gum tree stump in his back yard which eventually dissipated. However, this contention is not accepted as being credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a $1,000 civil penalty upon respondents for violating Subsections 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondents should also be required to correct their failed system by installing a mound- type drainfield within thirty days from date of final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1300 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Respondents: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 13-14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 J. Gary Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, FL 32011
Findings Of Fact Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. filed its application with the Department of Environmental Regulation to excavate four canals and to unplug two canals which they had already dug within its development in Port Pine Heights located on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The application of Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. was introduced as Composite Exhibit No. 1 and a plat of the proposed development was introduced as Exhibit 9. The proposed activity would be constructed on Class 3 waters as defined in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. Test data submitted shows that the water quality of the water in the existing canals meets or exceeds the standards established in Section 17-3.09, F.A.C. The proposed canals, as well as the existing canals, are being developed as residential home sites. Two potential threats exist to the maintenance of water quality standards within the canals. The first threat is the short-term effect of increased turbidity of the waters due to the construction of the proposed activity. The second threat is the long-term effect of the increased pollution of the waters resulting from waste disposal through proposed septic tank systems to be used in the residential home sites adjoining the proposed and existing canals. The permit application appraisal, Exhibit 2, indicates that the short- term effects of increased turbidity could be controlled by the use of plugs, screens, and daily testing for turbidity and dissolved oxygen. The evidence further shows a variance in the depth of the existing canals and the two plugged canals. The two plugged canals and several of the existing canals have a depth greater than the central canal. The variance in depth permits the accumulation of debris and silt in the finger canals which under certain conditions could be stirred up and become suspended in the waters of the canals increasing the turbidity of the canals and violating the water quality standards. To prevent this from occurring these canals would have to be filled to bring them to the depth of the central canal. The long-term threat to water quality in the canals is the introduction into the canals of nutrients and chemicals attributable to surface water runoff and the proposed septic tank systems to be utilized on the residential home sites. Control of surface water runoff can be obtained by backs loping the uplands away from the canals. The control of nutrient loading associated with the septic tank systems is more complex. The Declaration of Restrictions for Port Pine Heights, Exhibit 7, recites that sewage disposal shall be by septic tank or central disposal plant. However, the plans submitted by the Applicant do not indicate any provision for establishment of a central disposal plant. Further, under the provisions of the deed restrictions there is no requirement that a resident of Port Pine Heights use a central disposal plant even if such a system were available. The current residents of Port Pine Heights currently use septic tank waste disposal systems; however, the number of current residents is substantially less than the number of residents that Port Pine Heights is designed to accommodate. The disposal of sewage by septic tanks will result in the introduction in the canal waters of partially treated effluent through exchange with subsurface waters in the porous limestone substrata present in the area. To maintain the water quality at the required level, the waste effluent from the residential development must be prevented from entering into the canal. Because of the substantial difference in the level of development existing in Port Pine Heights currently and the potential level of development, the test data and the projections based upon that data do not give reasonable assurances that the increased pollutions attributable to the use of septic tanks would not violate water-quality standards.
Recommendation Until the Applicant makes a reasonable, affirmative showing that the long- term effect of the activity will not violate the water-quality standards, the application should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION KYLE BROTHERS LAND COMPANY, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-607 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
