Findings Of Fact On December 28, 1984, Respondents Newton and Taylor applied to the Franklin County Public Health Unit for permits authorizing construction of septic tanks and drain field systems on properties they own adjoining the Apalachicola River. Respondent Newton filed two applications for two contiguous lots he owned on the river, while Taylor's application was for a parcel of property approximately 200 feet north of Newton's property, also adjoining the river. Sometime during the following two weeks, Donald Shirah, then environmental health specialist with the Franklin County Public Health Unit, a subdivision of HRS, performed a site evaluation of the sites referred to in the permit applications. The site evaluation performed by Mr. Shirah indicated that on each lot soil composition consisted of gray sand down to 45 inches, with "mottling" at 45 inches and wet soil from 46 inches to 60 inches. The soil composition reflected a wet season high water table lying at 45 inches below the ground surface. The soil report further indicated that the percolation rate of 2 units per minute was "an excellent percolation rate." Based on these tests, Shirah approved the sites for construction of the septic tanks and drain fields and established the points on the property where the septic tanks should be located. Thereafter, in May, 1985, the District II office of HRS, which directs the Franklin County Public Health Unit in matters concerning septic tanks and their installation, directed the Public Health Unit to reevaluate certain septic tank construction permits. Consequently, a letter from the Department went to all permit holders in Franklin County on August 5, 1985, including the Respondents. This letter informed them that their permits were subject to reevaluation. A considerable public furor ensued and, in an attempt to abate the discord and explain its intended action, HRS arranged a meeting with some of its public health officials and the Franklin County Commission on August 14, 1985. Respondent Newton attended this public hearing and exhibited his existing permit to HRS personnel in attendance. E. Charlton Prather, M.D., the state health officer for HRS, in attendance at this meeting, assured Respondent Newton that because his application had been made in 1984, prior to the designation of Franklin County as an "area of critical state concern," (effective July 1, 1985) and prior to the amendments to Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, effective February 5, 1985, that his septic tank permits were still valid. Thereafter, Newton arranged with a contractor, to have the septic tanks installed, which was accomplished in approximately late October, 1985. Newton had received a letter on October 11, 1985, from the Franklin County Public Health Unit, instructing him to contact the County Public Health Unit before proceeding with construction of his septic tank systems. Notwithstanding this letter, and in reliance on Dr. Prather's assurance that his permits were valid, Newton proceeded to install his septic tank systems. The installations were completed, and Newton paid the installer for the work on or before November 5, 1985, some two weeks after installation. The installation of the systems came to the attention of the Franklin County Public Health Unit on approximately December 10, 1985, when the septic tank installer informed Gerald Briggs, the environmental health specialist with the Franklin County Public Health Unit, that Newton's septic tank systems had been installed and were ready for inspection. Mr. Briggs gave the final inspection and informed the installer that the tanks were installed in accordance with the specifications contained in the permits. He also informed the installer that he could not issue final approval of the systems because they were located within 20 feet of "marsh land" and that, because he observed standing water on or about the site, the soil conditions were such that the system would not operate properly. Mr. Briggs discussed the situation with environmental health director, John Kinlaw, who decided that the permits should be revoked because they were located within a "wetland" area as defined by the rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation; so called "jurisdictional wetlands." Mr. Briggs made measurements and examination of the soil and water conditions at the site and his measurements revealed standing water at a depth of 12 to 15 inches below the surface, contrary to the findings of Mr. Shirah, who performed the inspection which resulted in the issuance of the permits. Mr. Briggs also observed a "marsh are all visible within 20 feet of the systems characterized by a growth of "marsh grass." Mr. Briggs' inspection was made at a time shortly after the hurricane which struck this area in late November of 1985, characterized by a severe and extensive period of rainfall. Mr. Briggs also observed mottling near the surface of the soil, at all three sites, which indicates water being present intermittently, such that the soil, being alternately wet and exposed to air, oxidizes, leaving a rust colored stain. The septic tanks were installed at about a 5 1/2 or 6 foot depth. There is about 2 to 3 feet of fill sand at the site, below which the installer had to dig to place the tanks. The fill sand is underlain by muck at a depth of 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface. As a necessary part of the installation of the tanks, some of that muck had to be excavated and placed on top of the ground in the vicinity of the tanks and remained on or near the surface of the ground at the time of Mr. Briggs' inspection. The water table exists at a level of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface and when that wet muck was excavated, some of it necessarily remained visible on the surface of the sites in question. The systems constructed on Newton's lots are between 110 and 115 feet from the mean high water line of the Apalachicola River. The site description contained in the applications for the systems stated that the sites were to be 152 feet from the river. Nevertheless, there is no question that the sites are more than 75 feet from the Apalachicola River and that inspector Shirah assured the respondents that their sites were appropriately located. Indeed, he assisted in the location of them and informed the Respondents that the systems met pertinent regulatory requirements. That decision resulted in the issuance of the construction permits. Mr. Shirah established that the septic tank systems met all pertinent criteria concerning setback distances from lakes, streams, canals or other surface water bodies, including the Apalachicola River. Roger Newton, a Respondent and Bob Engle, former director of research for the Department of Natural Resources, both testified concerning their familiarity with the property in question and the general physical description and topography of the land. The general physical nature of the property in 1987 was the same as it was prior to and at the time of the issuance of the permits on January 14, 1985. They established that there was no lake, canal, stream or surface water within 75 feet of the septic tank systems or sites in question. A consent order was introduced into evidence which reveals, as a result of prior litigation in Franklin County Civil Case No. 75-55, that the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Army Corp of Engineers issued permits to the former owners of the property, which authorized them to fill the land at issue to a depth of 150 feet from the bank of the Apalachicola River westward. That fill was placed over the westward portion of this property, including the septic tank and drain field sites in question, to a depth of 2 to 3 feet. This had the result of raising the property to an elevation of approximately 10 feet above the surface waters of the Apalachicola River, which elevation dropped slightly to a road going through the middle of the lots, and remaining level thence westward to a point where the lots terminate in a marsh area. The consent order in evidence does not establish on its face that the fill was actually placed in a jurisdictional wetland area, for purposes of the Department of Environmental Regulation's jurisdiction over the landward extent of state water as defined by the vegetative index contained in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The testimony of a representative of the DER does not establish what dominant vegetational species might prevail on the sites in question which would render those sites within jurisdictional wetlands of the DER. The representative of the DER established that a jurisdictional wetland may be commonly referred to as a "swamp" or "marsh" and that, under prevailing policy of the DER, the fact that fill dirt has been placed on land does not render such land non-jurisdictional. Although this witness described DER's policy that issuance of a dredge and fill permit implies that the land in question is jurisdictional wetland, the fact remains that the face of the circuit court consent order in evidence does not establish that this indeed was jurisdictional wetland at the time the consent order was entered, nor at the present time. The consent order was the result of a settlement of that litigation, in effect a negotiated contract between the parties by which the dredge and fill permit was issued, in 1978. Further, although HRS purportedly has a policy that the term "surface waters," for purposes of the rules cited herein, includes within its ambit "swamps and marshes," the fact remains that in Rule 10D-6.42(38), the admitted 1985 clarification of that policy, surface water is defined as "...a recognizable permanent body of water, including swamp or marsh areas, contained within a recognizable boundary or bank..."(emphasis supplied). The septic tanks in question are not within 50 feet (for purposes of the pre-February 1985 rules) nor even within 75 feet of a swamp or marsh area which is contained within a recognizable boundary or bank. Even if marsh grass, (the species of grass has not been established) was observed growing within 20 feet of the septic tanks in question, it has not been established that was the boundary of a swamp or marsh area or other form of surface water body for purposes of the HRS rules in question. The testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses that marsh grass was observed growing close to the septic tanks does not overcome the showing by witnesses Newton and Engle that the actual water body, consisting of the marsh lying westward of the lots and disposal systems in question, was not within 75 feet of those systems. In addition to the question of the setback distance of the septic tank systems from the surface waters in question, it has not been established that this property is wetland within the DER's jurisdiction. The Petitioner purports to regulate the location of the systems by reference to Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, whereby the DER, by the use of the vegetative index, defines wetlands or the landward extent of state waters. Thus HRS seeks also to justify revocation of the permits on the basis that these tanks are located not 50 feet or less from a marsh, but rather in it. As found above however, such has not been proven to be the case. Although HRS purports to have a policy that any change which takes place on a piece of property, for which a septic tank permit has been issued, which creates a discrepancy between the actual state of the land and that represented on the permit application, renders the permit invalid, that situation has not occurred. In fact, it was shown that the fill in question has been on the property much longer than the period of time since the permit application and that the configuration and topography of the property remains the same as prior to December, 1984. Finally, it has not been proven that the surface waters observed standing on the lands of Newton and Taylor, shortly after the extensive rainfall associated with the hurricane in November, 1985, are such waters as contemplated by Rule 10D-6.046(3) or 10D-6.042(38). There has been no proof that this was other than rainfall nor that the water remained on the surface of the land in question for more than 24 hours. See Rule 10D-6.046(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeking revocation of the septic tank construction permits issued to Jack Taylor and Roger Newton be dismissed in their entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 86-0922, 86-1528 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 4-6. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in its entirety supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not dispositive of material issues presented. 12-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of any material issue presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and contrary to the competent substantial evidence of record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-6. Accepted. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issues presented. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of any material issue presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to competent substantial evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 13-14. Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District II Legal Counsel Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 John R. Perry, Esquire Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 John A. Kinlaw Environmental Health Director Franklin County Public Health Unit Post Office Box 490 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 86-0922 ROGER R. NEWTON, Respondent. / DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 86-1528 JACK TAYLOR, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING TO THE DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS I conclude that this case should be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearing for a reweighing of the evidence. In Friends of Children vs. HRS, 504 So2d 1345 at 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the Court held that where a Hearing Officer erroneously excluded evidence, the case should be remanded for the Hearing Officer to reweigh the evidence and make findings of fact on the basis of all admissible evidence. Returning to the present case, the Hearing Officer did not consider HRS exhibit Y, which he excluded as irrelevant, and the testimony of Larry Olney, an environmental specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulations, on the issue of whether the subject lots were jurisdictional land (for explanation see the rulings on exceptions number nine 9 and 11 to the findings of fact and exception number 1 to the conclusion of law). This evidence is relevant; thus, the evidence as a whole must be reweighed and findings made on whether the 75 foot setback requirement of Section 381.272(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1983) is satisfied. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HRS excepts to the findings on page 5 of the Recommended Order concerning the statements of Dr. Prather at a meeting in August, 1985, on the grounds the statements are irrelevant. Exception number one (1) is denied as this finding simply Provides background for the case. HRS excepts to the finding in the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7, regarding standing water. On this point as well as many others throughout the case the evidence is conflicting The Hearing Officers findings of fact are entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury. Gruman vs. State, 379 So2d 1313 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). It is the Hearing Officers function to resolve conflicts in the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and make findings of fact; and the agency may not reject a finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred. Heifetz vs. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So2d 1277 at 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The finding to which HRS objects is supported by competent, substantial evidence; therefore, it cannot be rejected. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. In exception number three (3) HRS asks that the Hearing Officer's findings regarding "mottling" be clarified. Exception number three (3) is granted. The presence of mottling indicates that water stays at a certain level for a considerable length of time on a regular basis. HRS excepts to the finding on page 7 of the Recommended Order, that "the water table exists at a level of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface." The finding is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, it cannot be rejected. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the finding on page 8 of the Recommended Order, that no surface water existed within 75 feet of the septic tank systems in question. The finding is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, it cannot be rejected. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the finding that the subject lots were not DER jurisdictional wetlands. This finding cannot be rejected as it was the subject of contradictory evidence. There was evidence that the lots had been filled and were no longer swamp or marsh. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. In exception number seven (7), HRS maintains that the subject lands were wetlands and that there was no conflicting evidence on this point. This issue was the subject of sharply conflicting evidence. As Pointed out in exception number two (2), it is the function of the Hearing Officer to resolve conflicting evidence. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the finding on page 10 of the Recommended Order, that the species of marsh grass which HRS personnel identified as such were not established. Again, this Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. It is noted that several species were identified in HRS exhibit Y which the Hearing Officer ruled was irrelevant. HRS excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding with respect to HRS' reliance on the jurisdictional evaluation by DER authorized by Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. HRS does not regulate the location of on-site sewage disposal systems by reference to this chapter. Rather, HRS regulates the location of such systems by reference to Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and in this instance reads the terms "swamp" and "marsh", which were undefined in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, in pari materia with the definitions of wetlands in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Exception number nine (9) is granted. A determination by DER that property is wetlands under its rule is highly relevant to whether the property is swamp or marsh under the HRS rule. HRS excepts to the statement in the Recommended Order that HRS has a policy that any change which takes place on a piece of property, for which a septic tank permit has been issued, which creates a discrepancy between the actual state of the land and that represented on the permit applicant, renders the permit invalid. This is not HRS' policy. This portion of exception number ten (10) is granted. Regarding the Hearing Officer's finding on the extent of surface water, again the evidence was conflicting. HRS objects to the finding in the conclusions of law section, that HRS has "changed" its interpretation of the rules regarding permitting of on-site sewage disposal systems in DER jurisdictional areas. It has been and remains HRS' policy to deny the permitting of such systems in DER jurisdictional areas. This is a sound policy as it is likely to be very unusual that land which is "wetlands" under the DER rule would nevertheless meet the criteria for installation of a septic tank under HRS rules. HRS is obligated to enforce its own rules, Section 120.68(12)(b), Florida Statutes; and if the facts are such that a septic tank is lawful under HRS statutory and rule authority it must be approved. While not applicable to this case, I direct that serious consideration be given to amending the HRS rule to adopt by reference the DER rule. The Apalachicola River is a fragile and irreplacable jewel in Florida's ecological crown. If that river and the bay nourished by it are destroyed it is likely to be caused by the cumulative effect of many small decisions, each of which, individually have an almost imperceptible effect. The enforcement of HRS' septic tank rules will hopefully help prevent loss of the river. Exception number eleven (11) is granted. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HRS excepts to the Hearing Officer's ruling excluding from evidence HRS exhibit Y, the DER jurisdictional report. This exception is granted as the exhibit is highly relevant on the issue of whether the septic tanks were installed in or within 75 feet of marsh or swamp surface water areas. HRS excepts to the conclusion that under the rules prevailing at the time the applications for permits were filed, a 50 foot setback was required. The statutory requirement was 75 feet; thus, the rule was repealed by implication. Section 381.272(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1983). This exception is granted. HRS excepts to the conclusion that HRS was attempting to expand its jurisdiction of wetlands. See the ruling on exception number eleven (11) to the findings of fact. Here HRS further argues the jurisdictional issue. See the ruling on exception number eleven (11) to the findings of fact. HRS maintains that the Hearing Officer concluded that the high water line of the swamp or marsh could not be determined. From a review of the transcript and exhibits it is clear that conflicting evidence was received on the setback issue and that findings were made. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the conclusion that the permits must be honored because they were not shown to contain knowingly false or misleading information. The decision on these permits must be based on application of the setback law; thus, this exception is granted. Here HRS further argues the jurisdictional issue. See the ruling on exception number eleven (11) to the findings of fact. Based on the foregoing, it is adjudged that this case be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearing for further proceedings consistent with this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Assistant Secretary for Programs COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire District 2 Legal Counsel 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire WATKINS & RUSSELL 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Michael Ruff Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Pearce, Esquire District 2 Legal Counsel 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 John A. Kinlaw Environmental Health Director Franklin County Public Health Unit Post Office Box 490 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent to the above-named people by U.S. Mail this 16th day of February, 1988. R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0700 (904)488-2281 ================================================================= ORDER DECLINING REMAND =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., for maintaining a sanitary nuisance.2/
Findings Of Fact In 1990,6/ the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., purchased property at 8402 Lemon Road, Port Richey, Florida, for purposes of relocating his on-going food distributing business. The prior owner operated a carpet business, with approximately five employees, at the location. The Respondent had about 45-50 employees. Shortly after the Respondent started doing business at the new location, he began to have problems with the existing septic tank system. The problem seemed to relate to the increased use of the toilets in the building by the added number of the Respondent's employees. In September, 1990, an HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and observed evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface from the septic system's drain field and flowing into a stormwater retention pond on the property.7/ The Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance, and a discussion of the Respondent's alternatives ensued. The Respondent rejected the first proposed alternative of connecting to a central public sewer. The nearest connection was over 1000 feet away and would entail significant cost to the Respondent. (The cost would have been even higher if gravity flow was not possible, and it became necessary to pump to the connection point.) The Respondent chose, with HRS' permission, the next alternative of trying to solve the problem by installing a second septic tank system on the property. The second septic tank system for which the Respondent applied, and which he had built, was designed for domestic use by 15 employees. In addition, after installation of the second septic tank system, the Respondent began processing a relish pack and a salad mix on the premises. The processing method for these products required the use of a great deal of water. On or about February 7, 1991, another HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and again found evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface, this time from the new septic system's drain field, and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. The amount of water flowing into the drainfields, from a combination of the use of the toilets in the building, together with the new processing operations taking place in the building, had overtaxed the double septic tank system, and the system failed. Given the quantities of water needed to process the new products, the Respondent should have anticipated, and probably was aware of, the system failure. The Respondent was directed to fix the problem within a week or stop the processing the new products on the premises. The Respondent tried several water conservation methods in an attempt to address the problem without having to either stop processing the new products or incur the cost of connecting to the central public sewer system. He knew, or should have known, that his efforts were futile, given the quantities of water needed to process the relish pack and salad mix. HRS also referred the matter to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. DER inspected on or about February 18, 1991, and told the Respondent that he could not dispose of the industrial waste from the operation of his business in the on-premises septic system without an industrial waste disposal permit. In connection with this, DER apparently advised the Respondent that he would be required to test the water in the stormwater retention pond for certain contaminants. The Respondent was unable to understand what he needed to test for, and how, and sought assistance from DER and HRS. Although there is evidence that HRS tried to help the Respondent by referring him to certain individuals employed by the DER for answers, the Respondent did not follow HRS' guidance. In any case, the efforts would have been futile, as the Respondent did not have enough property to dispose of the industrial wastes from the operation of his business on-site using a septic tank system. On or about June 19, 1991, a neighbor complained to the Respondent about the smell of raw sewage coming from the Respondent's septic system. The Respondent did not receive his neighbor's observations kindly. The neighbor complained to HRS and the Pasco County Sheriff's office. An HRS inspection on June 20, 1991, confirmed the existence of a sanitary nuisance on the premises. Again, raw sewage was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and was flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged for another meeting with the Respondent on June 27, 1991. At the June 27, 1991, meeting, HRS required that the Respondent stop processing the relish pack and the salad mix until he could hook up to the central public sewer. It was felt that the septic tank systems might be adequate pending connection to the central public sewer if the quantities of water required for processing those products on the premises were eliminated and if other preventive measures were taken. From June 27, 1991, forward to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased relish pack and salad mix from other suppliers rather than process them on the premises at 8402 Lemon Road. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out as frequently as required (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. After learning that excessive water use at the premises was partially a result of plumbing leaks, the Respondent also had the plumbing fixed. The Respondent also immediately initiated the long process of connecting to the central public sewer. He had a meeting with the assistant county administrator for utilities service for Pasco County on July 3, 1991. They discussed alternatives for connecting the Respondent's business. Initially, the County wanted the Respondent to pay to run a sewer line over 1000 feet to the south of his property to enable the County to efficiently connect other businesses and property owners in that area. But this option would have been costly to the Respondent, and there was no guarantee that gravity flow was possible between the Respondent's property and the connection point. If not, the Respondent also would have to pay the cost of pumping to the connection point. The Respondent hired an engineer to design an alternative that would be less costly. He also sought the cooperation of his neighbors, who would be required to connect to central sewer when the Respondent did. The engineer also worked with those neighbors in designing an alternate connection. On or about September 9, 1991, another meeting was held among the Respondent and his engineer and the county's utilites construction team. As a result of this meeting, the County agreed to modify the connection route in accordance with the Respondent's proposal. The Respondent's engineer continued his work on the design of the connection. HRS inspections on or about September 11 and 25, 1991, revealed that the Respondent's septic system was failing again and that raw sewage again was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged to meet with the Respondent again on October 4, 1991, along with a Pasco County deputy sheriff and a DER industrial wastewater compliance inspector. At this meeting, the Respondent felt that the deputy sheriff was threatening to arrest him for violation of the law, and he angrily terminated the meeting and asked all of them to leave the premises. In December, 1991, the Respondent arranged a meeting with the County and his neighbors to discuss sharing the cost of the connection route the Respondent was proposing to build. The neighbors, realizing the Respondent's weak bargaining position, refused to share the Respondent's costs. At this point, the County conceded to pay the approximate $9,000 to jack and bore under the road, but the Respondent was required to pay to run a sewer line approximately 300 feet to the south and to construct a manhole on his neighbors' side of the road, as well as on his side of the road. (The second manhole would be used by the neighbors to connect their properties to the line the Respondent was building when the County required them to connect.) The total cost to the Respondent for his part of the construction of the connection to the public sewer will be approximately $24,000. On January 17, 1992, the Respondent paid a $3,428 impact fee for connecting to the central public sewer, based on projected water use. On January 23, 1992, the Respondent applied for a force main interconnect permit. At the time of the final hearing, the jack and bore and the construction of the new sewer line connecting the Respondent's property to the central sewer were about to begin. The evidence indicates that, once HRS made it clear to the Respondent on or about June 27, 1991, that connection to the central public sewer was the Respondent's only remaining option, the Respondent moved with reasonable dispatch. The time it took to arrange to be connected to the public sewer was within normal ranges, and there is no evidence that the Respondent did anything to cause unnecessary delays. (Delays, if any, were caused by the need for the Respondent's engineer to work with and get cooperation from the Respondent's neighbors, who were not as anxious as the Respondent to have the new sewer line built.) There also is no evidence that the Respondent processed relish pack or salad mix on the premises after June 27, 1991. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out frequently (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. The evidence also indicates that, after June 27, 1991, all concerned were hopeful that the measures the Respondent was taking would prevent, or at least minimize, septic system failures pending connection to the public sewer. After June 27, 1991, HRS presented direct evidence of septic tank system failures only on two occasions in September, 1991. The evidence is that, after becoming aware of the system failures in September, 1991, HRS sought the imposition of a fine against the Respondent. The evidence suggests two other important motivating reasons for HRS' action: first, not being aware of the actions the Respondent took between June 27 and September, 1991, to connect to the central sewer, HRS mistakenly believed that the Respondent was ignoring its instructions; and, second, HRS mistook the Respondent's angry outburst at the meeting at the Respondent's place of business in September, 1991, when he felt he was being threatened with arrest for violation of the law, as being evidence that the Respondent was not genuine in his apparent concern and efforts to respond to HRS' guidance and instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order fining the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a tract of land shaped in a truncated right triangle with the width at the base of 208.7 feet, the length at the altitude of 406.9 feet, and the width at the truncation of 50 feet (Exhibit 1). The tea of this tract is 1.208 acres. Petitioner has lived on this property for nine years with a private well and septic tank without experiencing any difficulty with the septic tank. Some years back Petitioner converted stables on the property into a one bedroom guest house and installed a septic tank for this guest house. Petitioner proposes to construct a residence in the southeastern corner of his property for his daughter and her husband and needs a septic tank permit before a building permit will be issued. The drain field for the proposed septic tank would be located more than 200 feet from any existing well.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner created a sanitary nuisance in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E- 6.022(1)(d)(l) and (q) and, if so, the proper penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Duval County Health Department (Department), is the agency charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to septic tank installations and repairs in Florida, pursuant to Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. Mr. Smith is a qualified contractor employed by All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. (All Florida). The citation issued on April 15, 2004, identifies Mr. Smith's registration number as SR0011389 and All Florida's registration number as SA0000956. The citation describes the alleged violations as follows: On March 8, 2004, a repair application was submitted to the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) for 8817 & 8821 Bellrose Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32244. All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. was indicated as the agent for the applicant/property owner, Ben Lewis. On April 8, 2004, Robert Hoag, qualifying contractor for Plumbing and Contracting by Hoag, disconnected the stub out line running from the house to the existing septic tank prior to installation of new septic tanks thus creating a sanitary nuisance. The existing septic tanks were abandoned at said property by All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc.; DCHD was not notified of tank abandonment as required for inspection. Water supply was not turned off during he time of construction. On April 9, 2004, Colleen Bierbach, DCHD inspector, observed and photographed prima facie evidence of untreated human waste discharge onto ground surface at 8817 & 8821 Bellrose Avenue. Mr. Smith accepted the citation on April 15, 2004. On the same date, Mr. Smith wrote a letter to Scott Turner of the Department of Health, in response to the citation. His letter reads as follows: Mr Scott Turner, On April 8, 2004 All Florida Septic Tank Service Inc. started a job at 8817 and 8821 Bellrose Avenue in which new tanks and drainfields were required. In order for the new drainfield to be installed the existing tank had to be abandon [sic] prior to any work being done. The two existing referenced tanks were properly pumped out an abandoned on April 8, 2004. The new septic tanks were scheduled to be installed that same day. Due to mechanical problems with the crane truck, the tanks were unable to be set that day, causing the contracted plumber, Robert Hoag, to be unable to tie in the new sewer line. On the following day April 9, 2004 tanks (1500 gallon septic tank) and (750 gallon dosing tank) were installed with a different truck. At that time the contracted plumber was onsite to immediately tie in the sewer line. In the mean time the Duval County Health Department came to do the required inspection of the new system, at which time Colleen Bierback of the Health Department observed a small amount of sewage on the ground and photographed the site. Mr. Hoag immediately tied the sewer in at the same time, fixing the sanitary nuisance within one hour after inspection. According to Mr. Smith, sanitary problems existed at this work site for months. That is, raw sewage had been coming out of the old septic system for a long time. In Mr. Smith's words, "I was there to fix the sanitary nuisance, not create it." The owner of the property in question engaged Mr. Hoag, of Plumbing and Contracting by Hoag, to accomplish the plumbing portion of the operation. While Mr. Smith's letter stated that the new septic tanks were actually installed on April 9, 2004, Mr. Smith testified at hearing that he performed excavation services, installed a new drainfield and set the new septic tanks on April 8, 2004. The sand and new drainfield had to be put in first and the new tanks installed last. The plumber, Mr. Hoag, would be responsible to make the necessary pipe connection on the new tanks. However, Mr. Hoag did not make the necessary pipe connection and the occupants of the residences used the facilities between April 8, 2004, and April 9, 2004. Mr. Smith did not call anyone to inspect the old septic tank upon abandonment. According to Mr. Smith, it is common practice in the Jacksonville area to not call for an "abandonment" inspection when the contractor has a permit to install a new tank. The Department's inspector, Colleen Bierbach, acknowledged that All Florida called for an installation inspection of newly installed tanks on April 8, 2004. On the morning of April 9, 2004, after the new tanks had been installed, Ms. Bierbach went to 8817 and 8821 Bellrose Avenue. She observed raw sewage on the ground flowing toward the septic tanks. She took photographs of what she observed, but the copies of the photographs received in evidence are too blurry to show the extent of what she saw. Mr. Smith arrived at the work site just after Ms. Bierbach arrived on April 9, 2004. The description of the violation in the citation states that Mr. Hoag, the plumber, "disconnected the stub out line running from the house to the existing septic tank prior to the installation of the new septic tanks thus creating a sanitary nuisance." The evidence is insufficient to prove that Mr. Smith's actions, as opposed to the actions of Mr. Hoag, caused the unsanitary conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Duval County Health Department, dismiss the citation issued to Mr. Smith on April 15, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 James L. Smith All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. 8300 W. Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. M. Rony Francois, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Variance Review and Advisory Committee and the Department of Health had just cause to disapprove Petitioner's application for a variance.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health (DOH) is the agency responsible for oversight of the on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems program and the Variance Review and Advisory Committee which meets monthly to recommend agency action on variance requests pursuant to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. In August 1999, Petitioner applied to the DOH for a second variance to extend a variance previously granted in June 1999, to use an existing septic system for six months. Petitioner's application for the second variance stated that county sewer would be available in 2001, and she would be required to hook into the sewer. Therefore, Petitioner wanted an extension to continue using the existing undersized septic system until the sewer was available. She also attached water usage records for June 1998 through July 1999, for her property. Petitioner owns the commercial property served by the septic system and located on Howland Boulevard in Deltona, Florida. The property consists of a strip mall with five offices and one restaurant. The property originally contained six office spaces in 1990, when Petitioner applied for a permit to install a septic system to handle the building's sewage flow. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner was granted a construction permit for the septic system on August 14, 1990, which contained the statement: "no food service operations permitted in this building." Prior to May 1999, Petitioner leased an office in her commercial property to Milagros Martinez to operate a sandwich shop. Ms. Martinez applied to DOH for approval to use Petitioner's existing septic system to handle her sandwich shop sewage, and was denied because of increased water use and septic system demands of a restaurant. Petitioner's septic system contains a 750-gallon tank with 162 square feet of drainfield. In order to handle the additional sewage generated by the sandwich shop, the Florida Administrative Code requires a 1350-gallon tank and a drainfield of 787 square feet. There is enough room on Petitioner's property to install a separate septic system to handle the sewage generated from the sandwich shop. Petitioner applied to DOH for her first variance in May 1999, requesting to utilize the septic system to handle the waste from the sandwich shop. Petitioner appeared before the DOH Variance Review and Advisory Committee in June 1999. The committee recommended, and DOH concurred, to approve the first variance with four provisos. See DOH Exhibit No. 2. The four provisos were: The applicant shall obtain and maintain an annual onsite sewage treatment and disposal system operating permit in accordance with subsection 64E-6.003(5), F.A.C. The owner shall maintain an annual contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system at least once per month or more frequently as necessary. This variance allows operation of the sandwich shop for no more than six months. During that six months, the applicant shall take all necessary steps to increase the capacity of the system to accommodate the additional 230-gallon sewage flow from the sandwich shop. At the end of the six months, the system shall be in compliance or the sandwich shop shall be closed and remain closed until compliance is achieved. The four provisos were additionally explained to Petitioner in a letter dated July 14, 1999, from Sharon Heber, Director of the DOH Environmental Health Division. See DOH Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner accepted the provisions of the first variance on July 20, 1999. See DOH Exhibit No. 4. Petitioner does not have a current annual on-site sewage treatment and disposal system operating permit as required by the first proviso. Petitioner did not contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service her system at least once per month as required in the second proviso. Petitioner called a contractor to inspect her system four times in the six-month period since the first variance was granted. Within six months, Petitioner did not take the necessary steps to increase the capacity of her septic system to handle the additional flow as required by the third proviso of the first variance. The system is not in compliance and the sandwich shop is not closed as stated in the fourth proviso. In August 1999, Petitioner filed for a second variance requesting that the first variance be extended until year 2001. That is the date the county plans to install a sewer line on Howland Boulevard in Deltona, which will serve her commercial property. She submitted a letter from the Volusia County Public Works Service Center stating that the "sewer service is planned to be available sometime in the year 2001." See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. The Variance Review and Advisory Committee considered Petitioner's request at their September meeting. The variance committee unanimously denied Petitioner's request for a second variance. The Petitioner's system was not designed to handle an increased amount of sewage flow, and that it would eventually collapse or fail. The committee's approval of the first variance was to allow Petitioner adequate time to install the necessary septic system for the restaurant, and not put Petitioner in the position of telling her tenant she could not open her restaurant. See DOH Exhibit No. 5. When Petitioner's existing system fails, sewage will pond on the ground. The ponding fluid will consist of raw sewage. The leaking/ponding sewage may seep into the groundwater and then into drinking water aquifers. In the right conditions, this pollution can cause the spread of waterborne diseases such as typhoid and cholera, or viral infections, such as hepatitis A or polio.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order affirming the decision of the Variance Review and Advisory Committee and the Department of Health to disapprove Petitioner's second variance application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Connie Biancardi 2820 Howland Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725-1606 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health Volusia County Health Department 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Permit No. DO19-101251 issued to Mr. Vail on July 11, 1985 to construct and operate an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system should be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Vail is the owner and operator of a business called the St. George Inn and Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Inn"). The Inn is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue on St. George Island, Florida. In May of 1984 Mr. Vail spoke with an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services about obtaining a permit to construct a septic tank on his property for use by the Inn for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Mr. Vail was instructed to submit a design of the septic tank for approval. Mr. Vail contracted with McNeill Septic Tank Company for the design and construction of the septic tank. The evidence failed to prove when Mr. Vail applied with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a permit. As of March, 1985, however, Mr. Vail had not received approval or disapproval of his application from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Vail, therefore, went to the Governor's office to seek help in getting a response. Shortly after contacting the Governor's office, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services informed Mr. Vail that he needed to obtain a permit from the Department and not from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about March 18, 1985, Mr. Vail filed an Application to Operate/Construct Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Department. The Application was prepared by Brown and Associates Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc., Mr. Vail's engineering consultant. The Application was certified by Benjamin E. Brown, Professional Engineer. Mr. Vail signed the Application as "owner" and indicated that he was aware of the contents of the Application. In the Application, "St. George Inn Restaurant" is listed as the "Source Name." Under Part II, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to "[d]escribe the nature and extent of the project." In response to this request, the following answer was given: This project will provide a sewage disposal system for a one hundred and fifty (150) seat restaurant on St. George Island. Sizing of the septic tank system is based on 50 GPD/seat and secondary treatment will be provided by the design proposed. Under Part III, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to provide the following information and the following answers were given: Type of Industry Restaurant . . . . 3. Raw Materials and Chemicals Used Food preparation only. Normal Operation 12 hrs/day 7 days/week . . . . If operation is seasonal, explain This restaurant will be used the most during the summer months which corresponds with ocean/beach recreation & the tourist trade. Nowhere in the Application is it indicated that the permit applied for involved anything other than a restaurant. The Application gives no information from which the Department could have known that the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system would handle waste from guest rooms or an apartment. In the Application Mr. Vail sought approval of a permit to construct and operate a wastewater treatment and disposal system to serve a 150 seat restaurant. In the Application Mr. Vail sought a permit for a system which was to have a design flow of 7,500 gallons per day based on 50 gallons, per seat, per day water usage. An employee of the Department wrote a memorandum dated May 5, 1985, recommending approval of the Application. The Department determined, however, that the size of the property on which the Inn was to be located was not large enough for the drain field necessary to accommodate a 150 seat restaurant. Therefore, Mr. Brown modified the proposed system and resubmitted application data indicating that a 108 seat restaurant would be constructed. The design flow of the new proposal was 2,160 gallons per day based on 20 gallons per seat per day. Mr. Brown had requested that the Department approve a system based upon the newly submitted design flow. The Department and Mr. Brown both agreed that this design flow was adequate; that it was reasonable to anticipate and provide for the treatment and disposal of a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day design flow. The effect of reducing the design flow and the number of seats was to allow a shortened drain field which could be accommodated by the size of the property the Inn was to be located on. On June 27, 1985, Mr. Vail arranged for a notice to be published in the Apalachicola Times. That notice provided, in pertinent part, the following: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Notice of Proposed Agency Action on Permit Application The department gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Jack Vail to construct a restaurant and on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system [sic] at Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue, St. George Island. The treatment consists of grease trap, septic tank, and sand filter followed by disposal into a drainfield. The project meets applicable standards and will not impair the designated use of the underlying ground water. There is no anticipated impact on surface waters or air quality. . . . . This notice was sent to Mr. Vail by the Department and he made arrangements for it to be published. Nowhere in the notice is it indicated that the system to be approved by the Department is for anything other than a restaurant. On July 11, 1985, less than four months after the Application was filed with the Department, the Department issued Permit Number DO19-101251 (hereinafter referred to as the "Permit"). In the cover letter sent with the Permit the Department indicated that the Permit allowed Mr. Vail "to construct and operate a 2,160 gallon per day, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system serving St. George Inn Restaurant. . . ." The Department also indicates in the Permit that it is for the "St. George Inn Restaurant." The Permit also provides, in pertinent part, the following with regard to the purpose of the Permit: The above named applicant, hereinafter called Permittee, is hereby authorized to perform the work or operate the facility shown on the application and approved drawing(s), plans, and other documents attached hereto or on file with the department and made a part hereof and specifically described as follows: Construct and operate a 108 seat restaurant with an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system. Wastewater flows shall be a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day generated by domestic facilities and kitchen wastes . . . Construction shall be in accordance with application dated March 18, 1985 and additional information submitted April 29, 1985, specifications and other supporting documents prepared by Brown and Associates and certified by Benjamin E. Brown, P.E. and submitted to the Department on June 5, June 17, and June 20, 1985. The Permit also contains the following "General Condition" number 2 and "Specific Condition" number 15: . . . . 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings and exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the department. . . . . 15. The Department shall be notified and prior approval shall be obtained of any changes or revisions made during construction. . . . . The Permit provides the following with regard to the effect of the conditions of the Permit: The terms, conditions, requirements, limitations, and restrictions set forth herein are "Permit Conditions", and as such are binding upon the permittee and enforceable pursuant to the authority of sections 403.161, 403.727, or 403.859 through 403.861, Florida Statutes. The permittee is hereby placed on notice that the Department will review this permit periodically and may initiate enforcement action for any violation of the "Permit Conditions" by the permittee . . . . During the week after the Permit was issued, Mr. Vail obtained a building permit from Franklin County for the construction of the "inn." In February, 1986, after construction of the Inn had begun, Department inspectors went to the construction site of the Inn. The Permit authorized this inspection and other inspections carried out by the Department. The Department determined that the Inn being constructed by Mr. Vail included a restaurant, an apartment on the third floor of the Inn with two bathrooms, and eight guest rooms on the second floor, each containing a bathroom. This was the first time that the Department knew that Mr. Vail's facility was to include guest rooms and living quarters in addition to containing a 108 seat restaurant. In March of 1986, the Department sent a warning letter to Mr. Vail notifying him of the violation of the General Conditions of his Permit: the use of the approved system for the treatment and disposal of wastewater from the ten bathrooms in the guest rooms and the two bathrooms in the apartment in addition to the 108 seat restaurant. On April 1, 1986, Department personnel met with Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown. The Department reminded Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown that the Permit requested and approved by the Department was for a 108 seat restaurant only. The Department had not authorized a system which was to be used for a 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. Pursuant to General Condition 14, the Department informed Mr. Vail that it needed an engineer's evaluation of the ability of the system which had been approved to handle the additional flow which could be expected from the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated April 1, 1986, the Department memorialized the meeting and indicated that Mr. Vail could operate a 100 seat restaurant and the apartment during the interim. By letter dated May 8, 1986, Mr. Brown asked for additional time to submit the evaluation requested by the Department. The Department approved this request by letter dated May 14, 1986. By letter dated May 16, 1986, Mr. Brown submitted an engineering evaluation which proposed modifications to the approved system to handle the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated June 13, 1986, the Department indicated that the evaluation was generally acceptable" but requested additional information. In January, 1987, before the additional information was submitted, Mr. Brown died in an airplane accident. No evidence was presented to explain why the information requested by the Department in June of 1986 had not been submitted before January, 1987. In March, 1987, the Department inspected Mr. Vail's facility again. In April, 1987, the Department informed Mr. Vail that the Department would take action to revoke the Permit. Before the Administrative Complaint was issued, the Department requested that certain information be provided on behalf of Mr. Vail by an engineer in an effort to resolve the dispute. Mr. Vail did not, however, obtain the services of an engineer. Instead, Mr. Vail sent the Department information purporting to show the amount of water which had been used at the Inn. That information failed to prove the ability of the system that the Department had approved to handle the maximum wastewater which could be expected from maximum use of the 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. At best, the information submitted by Mr. Vail is partial proof that the system is capable of handling the wastewater that has been generated at the Inn for the period of time for which the information relates. No competent substantial proof has been submitted to indicate that the system is capable of handling the maximum wastewater flows which may be experienced or even that the system is adequately handling the current flow. All that has been proved is that there is no apparent problem with the system in handling the current flow. In September, 1987, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint. Pursuant to this Complaint, the Department has sought the revocation of the Permit and prescribed certain orders for corrective action. No application has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr. Vail to the Department to construct and operate a wastewater treatment facility designed to accommodate the sewage flows which may be generated by the Inn as it has been constructed. Although the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and other agencies were aware that the Inn includes a restaurant and guest rooms, the Department was never so informed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order requiring that Mr. Vail comply with all of the corrective orders, except Paragraph 18, contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NUMBER 87-4242 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which Proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Conclusion of law. 2 1. 3 6. 4 10. 5 12 and 13. 6 14. 7 15. 8 18. 9 19. 10 20. 11-12 16. 13 21. 14 23. 15 24. 16 25. 17 26. 18-19 27. 20 28. 21 29 22 Hereby accepted. Mr. Vail's Proposed Findings of Fact 1A 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Hearsay and irrelevant. Although technically true, this is not the issue in this case. The evidence did not prove that the system "can in actuality handle three times the amount permitted." Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 2A Not supported be the weight of the evidence. Exhibit 6 indicates that the Department was aware that the Inn included "hotel rooms" but not the number. Irrelevant. The evidence did not prove that the Department was aware of the scope of the project. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3A Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Even if this were true, the fact remains that the Department was unaware that the Inn included guest rooms or an apartment. Irrelevant. 4A-B Irrelevant. 5A-B Irrelevant. 6A 2-4. B 5. 6 and 11. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 12. 13 and 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 7A-C Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 8A-D Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 9A-B Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 10-12 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Windsor, Esquire State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. John Vail St. George Inn Post Office Box 222 St. George Island, Florida 32328 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Should Petitioner's application for variance from the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department, through its local health units, is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for permitting or granting variances from permitting standards set forth in Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS). Sometime around 1970, Petitioner purchased a mobile home park (Park) in Winter Haven, Florida. The Park presently contains 68 spaces for mobile homes, all of which are occupied. The Park is situated due south of Lake Shipp. There are two canals running approximately east and west through the interior of the Park. Another canal borders the Park on the north side. Included with the purchase of the Park was a Sewage Treatment System (STS) which is permitted and regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection and is presently operating at its maximum capacity serving the 68 mobile homes located in the Park. Sometime around 1980, Petitioner purchased a parcel of land (Property) immediately north of, and across a canal (this is the canal that borders the north side of the Park) from, the Park. The Property borders a basin to Lake Shipp. The Property is zoned for mobile home usage and such is the purpose for which Petitioner purchased the Property. Petitioner has designed the Property such that it will accommodate three mobile home lots (Lots numbered 69, 70, and 71) which Petitioner intends to operate as part of the Park. Initially, Petitioner requested approval of the Department of Environmental Protection to connect the new lots to the existing STS. However, since the existing STS was already at capacity, the Department of Environmental Protection denied Petitioner's request to connect the additional three lots to that system. However, the Department of Environmental protection advised Petitioner that it would have no objection to the installation of septic tanks approved by the Department of Health to serve the additional lots. Subsequently, Petitioner proceeded to obtain the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities and a permit from the Department for the installation of septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner was successful in obtaining the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities but was not successful in obtaining a permit for the installation of septic tanks on the Property from the Department. By letter dated July 16, 1997, the Polk County Health Department denied Petitioner's Application for Onsite Sewage Treatment Disposal System Permit for the following reason: "Domestic sewage flow exceeds 10,000 gallons per day." The denial letter also advised Petitioner that she could request a variance through the Variance Review Board or request an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the Department's denial of her application for a permit to install septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner elected to file an application for a variance from Section 381.0065(3)(b), Florida Statutes, with the Variance Review Board. By letter dated August 7, 1997, the Department denied Petitioner's application for variance for the following reasons: The Variance Review and Advisory Committee for the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Program has recommended disapproval of your application for variance in the case of the above reference property. The granting of variances from established standards is for relieving hardships where it can be clearly shown that the public's health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result, where no reasonable alternative exists, and where the hardship was not intentionally caused by the action of the applicant. The advisory committee's recommendation was based on the failure of the information provided to satisfy the committee that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, or the discharge from the system will not adversely affect the health of the public. I concur with the advisory committee's recommendation and hereby deny your variance request. Subsequently, Petitioner requested and was granted a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the denial of Petitioner's application for a variance. The Petitioner intends to locate the OSTDS on the Property. The tank and drain field for the OSTDS will be located approximately 125 feet from the basin. The City of Winter Haven's Sewage System is not available to the Property. The Park's existing STS does not have adequate capacity to accept the sewage that will be generated by the Property. There is no publicly-owned or investor-owned sewage system capable of being connected to the plumbing of the Property. Petitioner testified that the estimated cost of increasing the capacity of the Park's Sewage System to accommodate service to the three additional lots was $30,000.00 - $40,000.00. However, Petitioner presented no evidence as to how the estimate was determined. The projected daily domestic sewage flow from the Property is less than 1,500 gallons per acre per day. The Property contains 1.78 acres and there will be less than four lots per acre. In a letter dated October 17, 1997, from W. R. Cover, a professional engineer with Cover Engineering, Inc., Mr. Cover expresses the following opinion: The location of these proposed mobile homes is such that a septic system will not cause adverse effects or impacts on the environment or public health. The unit will be located so as not to significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters. There is no reasonable alternative for the treatment of the sewage in view of the fact that it would be an additional financial burden to attempt to connect these units to the existing sewage treatment plant Mr. Cover did not testify at the hearing. However, the letter was received as evidence without objection from the Department. Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that: (a) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, and (b) the discharge from the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or the public or significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters.
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 application for variance from the requirements of Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Robert J. Antonello, Esquire Antonello, Fegers and Cea Post Office Box 7692 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7692 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-0293
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMENDED that the application of Jay Hall for a septic tank permit at Lot 1, Deerwood Estates, Baker County, Florida be DENIED. However, applicant should be given thirty days from date of the final order in this cause to raise the height of the system to Department recommended specifications. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Prior to November, 1987, Petitioners purchased adjoining Lots 56 and 57 located in West Vic Holiday Sands subdivision in Santa Rosa County. 1/ The two lots constitute substantially less than a fourth of an acre of land. Petitioners intended to place two two bedroom mobile homes on the lots for use as a weekend retreat for their families. When Petitioners purchased the two lots, the lots had an existing 900 - 1050 gallon septic tank on the property. The tank had been previously approved by the Department of Pollution Control in 1973 for Recreational vehicle/campsite use. The tank had never been permitted for use as a homesite, such as a two bedroom mobile home would require. A Recreational Vehicle (RV) is generally considered by HRS to be a motor vehicle with a maximum size of 8'x 35'. Anything substantially over that size, as Petitioners' two mobile homes were, would not be considered for RV use and would be required to obtain a homesite type permit. Petitioners were required by their proposed use of the property to obtain a homesite permit. However, Petitioners did not discover the homesite permit requirement until after they had purchased the two lots and after they had purchased two mobile homes at considerable monetary cost to themselves. The Petitioners did not think about investigating whether a septic tank permit would be required because the subdivision area had permanent residences already in place. However, the evidence demonstrated the majority of these residences are located on four lots. There are a few residences located on fewer than four lots and on lots the size of Petitioners. 2/ The residences with nonconforming septic tanks were permitted by HRS under a mistaken interpretation of the law by the local Health Department office. However, about a year prior to Petitioners' permit and at the request of the local office, the local office was audited and its interpretation was brought into compliance with state law. Petitioners were, therefore, no longer entitled to rely on the local office's previous misinterpretation of the law and in previously issuing permits authorized under that misinterpretation of the law. Petitioners applied for an existing septic tank permit on November 23, 1987. Because the existing tank did not have enough capacity or drainage area for the Petitioners' desired use and the size of the property was under one- quarter acre, Respondent informed Petitioners they would have to seek a variance from the usual septic tank permit requirements. 3/ Petitioners applied for a variance. Petitioners felt a hardship variance should be granted due to the amount of money they had spent on the property and the fact Respondent had granted other nonconforming permits under its mistaken interpretation of the septic tank law. Neither of the Petitioners appeared at the variance review committee meeting in Ocala, Florida, which considered their variance request. However, the local health official recommended approval of the variance since other tanks had been mistakenly approved previously. The committee reviewed Petitioners' application and other relevant information about the property. The committee determined that no hardship existed and denied the permit. Petitioners received the committee's letter of denial on February 20, 1988. The evidence showed that Petitioners had spent close to $14,000.00 in purchasing the property and preparing it for occupancy. However, monetary expenditures alone have never been considered sufficient to establish a hardship in permitting cases. Petitioners presented no evidence which would cause such expenditures to amount to a hardship. Use of their property is still available, although that use is not exactly what Petitioners had in mind. Moreover, Petitioners may still recoup the money spent on the mobile homes by renting or selling them. Under these facts, no hardship was shown by Petitioners. In essence, Petitioners failed to show any monetary losses as opposed to expenditures of a significant nature. Likewise, Petitioners failed to establish justifiable reliance on the Respondent's previous mistakes, i.e., estoppel. Respondent's mistakes were not known by Petitioners at the time the majority of Petitioners' expenditures were incurred. The evidence regarding the general appearance of the subdivision was insufficient to establish a basis for such reliance. Moreover, Petitioners had the opportunity and the initial burden to investigate any potential governmental requirements prior to their purchase of the property. Again, no hardship was established by Petitioners' utilizing the theory of estoppel. Finally, Petitioners failed to present any reliable evidence that the discharge from their septic tank would not adversely affect the health of the public or would not significantly degrade the ground or surface waters of the State. The fact that other nonconforming tanks are in place with relatively few observable problems does not support the further inference that one more nonconforming tank won't hurt in an already overloaded area. Under these facts, Petitioners are not entitled to a variance from the Department's septic tank requirements; and therefore, are not entitled to a septic tank permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent request for a variance from the septic tank permit requirements be DENIED and the request for a septic tank permit be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
