The Issue Did Petitioner violate Section 386.041 and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department, through the Polk County Health Department, was the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of issuing permits for the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. The property in question is a duplex apartment building owned by Respondent and located at 1101-1103 Old South Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The two apartments in the duplex are serviced by a single septic tank and drainfield. In the summer of 1997, Petitioner determined that the drainfield needed repair and engaged the services of an individual who was not licensed to repair drainfields. Additionally, Petitioner did not obtain a permit for the repair to the drainfield. During the fall of 1997, Petitioner continued to experience trouble with the drainfield. Thereafter, on two separate occasions, Petitioner engaged the services of Burns Septic Tank Company (Burns) and Central Fla. Septic Tank Co. (Central) to pump-out the septic tank. Both Burns and Central indicated on their invoices for pumping out the septic tank that the drainfield was in need of repair. On December 9, 1997, after receiving a complaint from one of Petitioner’s tenants, the Department’s Environmental Specialist, Wade Schulz, made an inspection of the septic tank and drainfield at 1101-1103 Old South Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Schulz’s inspection revealed that the septic tank was backing up at the duplex apartments and that the septic tank D-box, old rock, and the drainfield pipe were exposed to the ground. Additionally, it was discovered that septage was flowing directly from the system to a wet drainage ditch. On December 9, 1997, Schulz verbally notified Petitioner that the system was in violation of: (a) Section 386.041, Florida Statutes (Nuisance injurious to health); (b) Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (Prior approved system shall remain in operating condition); and (c) Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (No person shall repair without permit). A written copy of the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance (Citation) was mailed to Petitioner but was returned as undeliverable. A copy of the Citation was personally served on Petitioner on January 23, 1998. After receiving the verbal citation from Schulz, Petitioner engaged Robby’s Septic Tank Service and had the septic tank pumped out. Other than pumping out the septic tank, Petitioner has made no other effort to correct the problem. After receiving the Citation, Petitioner met with the Department’s representative in an attempt to work out a solution. However, Petitioner contended that there was nothing wrong with the drainfield and refused to pay any fine. On July 9, 1998, the Department visited the site again and found that nothing had been done to correct the problem. Furthermore, the Department found that the system was still being improperly maintained. It was the opinion of both Schulz and Tony Warr, the Department’s Environmental Supervisor, that the only way to correct the problem was to completely repair the drainfield. It was Petitioner’s contention that the drainage ditch was clogged up resulting in a high water table around the drainfield and that if Polk County cleaned out the drainage ditch, allowing the water to flow off, it would resolve the problem of the drainfield. While the drainage ditch may be a problem, there was insufficient evidence to show that unclogging the drainage ditch would resolve the problem of the drainfield. It is clear that Petitioner’s drainfield is not operating properly and is in need of repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding the Petitioner guilty of the violations as charged and requiring Petitioner to pay a fine in the amount of $1,500.00 as set forth in the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance, Part 6. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin AO2 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Glenn E. Woodard, pro se Post Office Box 2000 Eaton Park, Florida 33801 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue 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
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Several years prior to1978, petitioner General Development Corporation (GDC) applied to the DER for a dredge and fill permit to remove a plug of land between the Ocean Breeze Waterway and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. During the course of negotiations for this permit, it was discovered that the North Port St. Lucie Sewage Treatment Plant, owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the petitioner, was operating without a permit from the DER and discharging effluent into a ditch which flowed into the Ocean Breeze Waterway. In March of 1978, a temporary operating permit was issued for the sewage treatment plant. In July of 1978, petitioner received from the DER Permit No. 253.123- 1031 to dredge an area approximately 800 feet in length, 90 feet in width and 6 feet in depth in order to connect the Ocean Breeze/Sagamore Waterways to the dead end oxbow of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The permit application was given special consideration pursuant to Rule 17-4.28(7), Florida Administrative Code. The purpose for obtaining the permit was to create direct navigable access to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River from thee Ocean Breeze Waterway. The Ocean Breeze Waterway was and is currently connected to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River by a narrow, shallow, meandering creek and lake system. However, there is not a large enough opening to allow the type of navigable access desired by the petitioner for the benefit of 118 lots plotted along the Ocean Breeze and Sagamore Waterways. Among the seven particular or special conditions attached to the dredge and fill permit issued to petitioner was that the earthen plug not be removed until such time as a permanent operational permit was issued for the sewage treatment plant owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc. More specifically, petitioner agreed to the following special conditions to the issuance of the dredge and fill permit: "(7) The applicant is aware that the GDC Utilities' sewage plant is providing an unknown quantity of discharge into Ocean Breeze Waterway and that this discharge may be a source of pollution to the receiving body of water unless affirmative steps are taken by the Utilities. The sewage treatment plant is currently operating under a Temporary Operating Permit (TP56-4601). In no case shall the plug at Cove Waterway be removed before an Operation Permit for the STP has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation." At time of issuance of the dredge and fill permit, DER personnel considered the quoted special condition number 7 to an integral part of the permit in terms of water quality assurances. General Development Utilities, Inc. has not been able to obtain a permanent operational permit from the DER for its sewage treatment plant which discharges into a ditch that flows into the Ocean Breeze Waterway. Therefore, particular condition number 7 has not been satisfied and petitioner has been unable to proceed with the dredging or removing of the plug under the permit. As a result of the delays in removal of the plug, petitioner has had to repurchase some 41 of the 118 plotted lots. The sewage treatment plant was and is still operating under a temporary permit. General Development Utilities, Inc. has requested a permanent operational permit for the sewage treatment plant and DER has issued a letter of intent to deny such a permit. As a result, General Development Utilities has petitioned DER for site specific alternative criteria pursuant to Rule 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code. This matter is the subject of a separate proceeding currently being held in abeyance pending a determination of alternative criteria. General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 81-177. In September of 1980, petitioner sent a letter to DER requesting that special condition number seven be removed from its dredge and fill Permit No. 253.123-1031. It was intended that this request be considered as a minor modification to the dredge and fill permit. In response, DER's Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, Suzanne P. Walker, informed petitioner by letter dated October 15, 1980, that it was the staff's initial reaction, after a review of the original dredge and fill permit file, that the requirement that the sewage treatment plant obtain a permanent operational permit prior to dredging remain as a condition of the dredge and fill permit. Petitioner was informed that if it wished to pursue the matter further, the project must be reevaluated as a major modification to the dredge and fill permit. A major modification to a permit requires a new permit application and fee and is treated and processed as an initial application for a permit, with the applicant being required to provide reasonable assurances that the water quality standards will not be violated. Upon request for a minor modification, DER simply reviews the file and determines whether the request is obviously environmentally insignificant. After receipt of the letter from Mrs. Walker, petitioner supplied DER with additional water quality data. Based upon this additional data, discussions with DER staff who had been involved with the initial dredge and fill permit and the sewage treatment plant permit, and two days of sampling data collected by DER, DER determined that particular condition number seven was an integral part of the affirmative reasonable water quality assurance provided and should remain a condition of the permit. This determination was communicated to petitioner by letter dated January 7, 1981. The sewage treatment plant discharges treated effluent into a drainage ditch known as C-108. Effluent from the plant first goes into holding or retention ponds. Under its current flow, it takes about forty days for the effluent to be discharged from the plant to C-108 and the Ocean Breeze Waterway. C-108 flows into the Ocean Breeze Waterway, an artificial waterway which is presently connected to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River by a narrow, shallow meandering creek and lake system. The sewage treatment plant currently operates at 300,000 gallons per day but has an authorized capacity to operate at two million gallons per day. It currently contributes approximately two percent of the total daily flow to C-108. The Ocean Breeze Waterway and C-108, independent of the sewage treatment plant, drain approximately 4,000 square acres and produce about 35 percent of the water that will flow into the North Fork. The North Fork is tidal, with four one foot tides per day. The tidal action comprises almost 63 percent of the moving water. At a two million gallons per day discharge, the wastewater plant would be contributing about 12 percent of the water that would be going into the North Fork from the Ocean Breeze Waterway system. In comparison with two adjacent drainage systems, the Ocean Breeze system contributes only about three percent of the fresh water which flows into the North Fork. The dissolved oxygen levels of C-108 are chacteristically below the state standard of five milligrams per liter, primarily due to the seepage of ground water into the canal. Due to man-made alterations and to natural phenomena, the North Fork's dissolved oxygen levels also characteristically fall below state standards. The dissolved oxygen level of the Ocean Breeze Waterway is characteristically above state standards. Higher levels of dissolved oxygen coming from the sewage treatment plant improves the dissolved oxygen levels of the existing system. High levels of nitrogen, phosphate and chlorophyll have been found near the point of discharge. The quality of water in the North Fork is better than in the Ocean Breeze Waterway. It was the opinion of petitioner's experts that no change in dissolved oxygen levels would occur in the Ocean Breeze Waterway or the North Fork if the plug of land between these water bodies were removed. Petitioner's witnesses also opined that the Ocean Breeze/C-108 system was not a source of nutrient enrichment to the North Fork, and that the present creek system provided no water quality benefits in the form of nutrient uptake for the North Fork. It was estimated that, if the plug of land were removed pursuant to the permit, a pollutant placed at the upper end of the Ocean Breeze Waterway would be diluted by 98 percent in 26 hours in lieu of the present 39 hours due to increased flushing. These opinions were based upon analyses by petitioner's witnesses of various samplings and data regarding dissolved oxygen, nutrients and phytoplankton. The respondent's witnesses felt that the poor water quality in the Ocean Breeze Waterway was attributable in large part to the sewage treatment plant discharge and, if the plug of land were removed, the water quality problems would be moved to the North Fork and the St. Lucie River. It was felt that the present creek and lake system -- the narrow circuitous connection presently existing between the canal and the river -- reduces the nutrients which otherwise would flow into the river. These conclusions were based upon DER's own survey, a review of the dredge and fill permit file and a review of the additional data supplied by the petitioner General Development Corporation. No data regarding the water quality of the effluent from the sewage treatment plant was submitted by the petitioner at the time of DER's review of the original application for the dredge and fill permit.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of General Development Corporation to modify Permit Number 253.123-1031 by removing particular condition number seven be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Valerie Fravel Corporate Counsel General Development Corp. 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami Florida 33131 Alfred J. Malefatto Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The City is a municipality located in Pinellas County, Florida. Alexander was hired by the City on October 7, 2002, as a Service Worker in the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department. He was a backup sanitation driver, working on residential collection routes. Grover Smith (Smith), the City's Sanitation Supervisor, supervises 17 employees, including Alexander. He is responsible for the daily operations of the collection of solid waste by the City's Sanitation Division. Smith has worked for the City as a sanitation supervisor for five years and was employed in the City's Sanitation Department for 17 years prior to becoming a supervisor. His work experience includes driving a sanitation truck and being a crew leader in the Sanitation Division. As an employee of the City, Alexander was subject to the City's Code of Conduct, which lists different groups of offenses for which City employees may be disciplined. The City's Code of conduct lists the following offense as a Group I offense: Tardiness, as defined as reporting late for work, overextending breaks or meal periods within one year of the first occurrence. Occurrences of tardiness shall only be considered for a year in applying progressive discipline. When determining the proper discipline go back only one year from the most recent occurrence and follow the progression of discipline as indicated. (Guide for determining tardiness: three times in any thirty (30) calendar day period, or six (6) times in any ninety (90) calendar day period or a continuous pattern of tardiness. From May 12, 2003, through June 6, 2003, Alexander was tardy to work four times. On June 10, 2003, Smith issued a verbal warning to Alexander for his tardiness. During November 2003, Alexander was tardy ten times. Smith issued Alexander a written warning on November 26, 2003, for his tardiness. Alexander was warned that any further violations would result in progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City's Code of Conduct provides that "[f]ailure to immediately report an accident or injury in which the employee is involved in while on the job" is a Group II offense for which a City employee may be disciplined. On December 9, 2003, Alexander struck a pine tree in a trailer park while driving a sanitation truck. Alexander did not immediately report the accident. Smith learned of the accident from another employee on December 9, 2003. Smith questioned Alexander the same day about the accident, and Alexander denied hitting the tree. The next day Smith investigated the incident and found evidence that a pine tree in the trailer park had been struck and that there were remnants of the pine tree on the bumper of the right side of the sanitation truck that Alexander had been driving. Smith again questioned Alexander, who continued to deny that he hit the tree. Only after two other employees who had been working with Alexander on the day of the accident admitted that the truck had struck the tree did Alexander admit that he had hit the pine tree. On December 16, 2003, Smith issued Alexander a written warning for failing to immediately report the accident. From February 27, 2004, through March 22, 2004, Alexander was tardy four times. Alexander received a two-day suspension for this offense, which was in accordance with the guidelines of the City's Code of Conduct which provides for a one to three-day suspension for a third Group I offense. The City's Code of Conduct provides that "[n]eglect or carelessness which results in a preventable accident" is a Group I offense for which a City employee may be disciplined. On May 20, 2004, Alexander, while driving a City sanitation truck, made a left turn and failed to swing wide enough, striking a series of mailboxes. The following day Alexander had another accident when he was backing a City sanitation truck down the street in a mobile home park and struck an awning on a mobile home. Both of these accidents occurred on the driver's side of the vehicle and could have been avoided if Alexander had been paying attention. The City's Code of Conduct provides that a City employee may be discharged for a Group IV offense, which includes the following: Chronic offender of the Code of Conduct. (Guide: four (4) violations of any departmental or City rule or regulation in an eighteen (18) month period which results in a Verbal Warning or other disciplinary action (effective upon adoption of the revised Personnel Rules). Smith recommended to Kurt Peters (Peters), the Director of Public Works for the City, that Alexander be suspended for five days. Peters consulted the City's Personnel Director, Bill Cropsey (Cropsey). Cropsey determined that Alexander was a chronic offender and could be discharged. On June 9, 2004, Cropsey sent Alexander a letter advising him that he was in violation of the City's Code of Conduct as a chronic offender of the Code of Conduct and that a pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled for June 14, 2004. Alexander was placed on administrative leave with pay, pending the pre-disciplinary hearing. The pre-disciplinary hearing was held on June 14, 2004, at which time Cropsey and Peters determined that Alexander should be discharged as a chronic offender. By letter dated June 14, 2004, Cropsey advised Alexander that he was terminated from his employment with the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Christopher Alexander's employment with the City. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher T. Alexander 6324 150th Avenue, North Clearwater, Florida 33760 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman, Heyman & Jardine, P.A. Post Office Box 15309 Clearwater, Florida 33766 Jeff Bronson, Chairman Personnel Review Board City of Safety Harbor 750 Main Street Safety Harbor, Florida 34695
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the alleged violations set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state agency charged with the regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (2004). The Respondent, Twistee Treat, is a restaurant located at 2301 South Jim Redman Parkway, Plant City, Florida. The Petitioner's official records indicate that Twistee Treat is owned by DWDC, Inc. At the hearing, Derek Scott stated that he is the owner. This discrepancy was not addressed at the hearing, but is immaterial. The Respondent holds License No. 3911021 (Permanent Food Service). Louay Bayyat is a sanitation and safety supervisor with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. His duties include inspecting food service establishments for compliance with applicable law. On December 1, 2003, Mr. Bayyat conducted an inspection of Twistee Treat and issued an inspection report. In his December report, Mr. Bayyat noted several violations, among which were the three violations that are alleged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint: a hand-wash sink was not connected to pressurized water; a restroom door was not self-closing; and there was no restroom accessible to the public. The inspection report indicated that the violations had to be corrected by January 1, 2004. Mr. Bayyat conducted a "call back" inspection of Twistee Treat on January 12, 2004, and noted in his inspection report for that date that the three violations found during the previous inspection, identified above, had not been corrected. The Petitioner asserts that the hand-wash sink and public restroom violations are "critical" violations that pose imminent harm to the public. However, the Food Service Inspection Report, DBPR Form HR 5022-015, used by Mr. Bayyat and submitted into evidence by the Petitioner, suggests that the three alleged violations in this case are not critical violations. The form indicates by an asterisk the violations that are critical, and the three violations charged by the Petitioner are not marked with an asterisk. The December 1, 2003, inspection report was signed by Derek Scott, and the January 12, 2004, inspection report was signed by Sommer Kelly, the night manager for Twistee Treat. The Petitioner stipulated at the hearing, that signing the inspection reports is not an admission of the truth or accuracy of the statements contained in the reports, but merely an acknowledgement of receipt of the report. Hand-Wash Sink The purpose of the requirement to provide pressurized water to the hand-wash sink is for convenient and effective hand-washing by employees who handle food prepared for consumption by the public. The Respondent did not dispute that the hand-wash sink is not connected to pressurized water. Instead, evidence was presented through the testimony of Derek Scott and Don Scott, the previous owner of the Twistee Treat in Plant City and the owner of two other Twistee Treats in Lakeland, Florida, that no other inspector for the Division of Hotels and Restaurants had ever indicated that this hand-wash sink violates state law. Self-Closing Restroom Door The purpose of requiring restroom doors to be self- closing is to minimize the potential for spread of disease through insects and rodents. There is no dispute that, at the time of the December 1, 2003, inspection, the door to the restroom at the Twistee Treat was not self-closing. The violation was corrected, and there is now a device on the door to make it self-close. The only dispute concerned whether the violation was corrected before or after the January 12, 2004, inspection. The testimony of Derek Scott and Mr. Bayyat on this factual issue is contradictory, and there is no other evidence in the record that resolves the contradiction. Neither Derek Scott nor Mr. Bayyat was more credible than the other on this particular issue. Public Restroom Under state law, the number of seats at a restaurant determines the number of public restrooms that must be provided. Mr. Bayyat noted in his inspection reports that there were 13 tables with seating for 26 persons at Twistee Treat. Deborah Cribbs, a manager at Twistee Treat since 1997, stated that it would be impossible to have 13 tables at Twistee Treat because of the limited space available for tables. The Respondent's Exhibits 2 through 4, which are photographs taken in June 2005 of the Twistee Treat building and facilities, support the Respondent's position on this issue. The more credible evidence of the seating provided at Twistee Treat at the time of the inspections was the testimony of Derek Scott and Ms. Cribbs, who stated that there were five tables and 13 seats. There are now three tables and seven seats at Twistee Treat. There is a restroom at Twistee Treat, but it was disputed whether the restroom was available to the public, or only to employees. Mr. Bayyat's determination that there was no restroom available to the public was based on his belief that the only access to the restroom was through the kitchen. Derek Scott claimed that the public had access to the restroom through the back door of Twistee Treat. The back door of Twistee Treat is hidden from view by a fence. The fence creates a small enclosure within which are a walk-in cooler, a sink, a hose, and the back door of the building. There is no sign on the fence that informs a person that a public restroom is somewhere behind the fence. Because the back door is not visible to the public and there is no sign indicating how to gain access to the restroom, I find that Twistee Treat does not currently provide a restroom accessible to the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order that finds the Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(1) and 61C4.010(7)(e), and imposes an administrative fine of $300 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Derek Scott Twistee Treat 2301 Jim Redman Parkway Plant City, Florida 33563 Derek Scott 1423 Ridge Green Loop, North Lakeland, Florida 33563 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 15, 1988. He received a failing grade with an original score of 41 raw points. Since that time, he has been awarded an additional 3 raw points and has a score of 44 raw points. A passing grade is 48 raw points and is, therefore, 4 raw points from passage. Petitioner contests the score given him on three of the problems on the examination. They are problems 120, 122, and 421. He did not have the test booklet he used at the examination available to him at the hearing. Though he recognizes that the grader who assessed his scores was not allowed to look at his test booklet during the scoring process, many of his calculations for problems 120 and 122 were made in it. Problem 120 requires the examinee to compute 6 stations and the coordinates of the 6 points of the two involved curves on a railroad spur line. Petitioner computed the six points to what he considers an acceptable tolerance and had also started to compute the coordinates as required by Requirement (b). His solution page for Requirement (a) of this problem reflects only the six points, of which 5 are marked incorrectly, and bears the grader comment, "show computations." The second page, relating to Requirement (b), on which the first 3 calculations are marked as incorrect, reflects only cursory calculations and bears the grader comment, "Incomplete." Petitioner was awarded a score of "4" for his solution to problem 120. According to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline, the guideline relating to "4", "BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED", reads: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. The scorer's remarks concerning Petitioner's solution state: A solution which fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of horizontal curve geometry as a result of logic errors, math errors, and failure to complete several parts. According to Petitioner, he used the Civil Engineering Reference Manual in his calculations. He also contends that Requirement (a) is far more important to the problem than is Requirement (b). Once the former is achieved, it is easy to achieve the latter. Admittedly, Petitioner did not complete Requirement (b) and, therefore, does not expect credit for it. However, he contends that having completed Requirement (a) correctly, he should have been awarded more than 40% credit. Petitioner also contends that the use of the term, "Not To Scale" in the test problem was deliberately deceptive which was not necessary to test engineers at this level of achievement. In this case, Petitioner contends the lack of availability of the examination test booklet in which he did many of his calculations hinders him in demonstrating the correctness of his solution. These computations, he contends, would show his computations in Requirement (a) were "close enough" to be graded correctly and without these computations, the scorer would not know if he did them or merely copied the answers. He would not, also, have any way of knowing if Petitioner has knowledge of horizontal curve geometry. Mr. Lippert, a licensed registered engineer testifying on behalf of Petitioner, believed that the answers to the problems to be more important than the computations. In a practical application he may be correct. However, in the instant case Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a Professional Engineer and was being examined on his qualifications for that status. In such a situation, it is not at all unreasonable to expect the candidate to demonstrate his method of arriving at his solution to demonstrate his understanding of the concept sufficiently to indicate his answer was neither copied nor a fluke. Since the candidate is seeking a higher degree of recognition, a requirement that he demonstrate a higher degree of professional skill is not unreasonable. Under the fact situation demonstrated here, the award of a "4" as a grade for Petitioner's solution to this problem is appropriate. In Problem 122, the candidate was required to use and show equations for his calculations of (a), the average maximum and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, for the total complex in issue; (b), the theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge; and (c), depth and velocity of flow for the estimated maximum flow rate. The candidate was instructed to conclude, if possible, that the sewer is not overloaded. The problem deals with a troublesome wastewater disposal system for a retirement community of 490 units with a population of 1,475. Here, Petitioner was awarded an a score of "8" and feels he should have received more. As to (a), Petitioner cited in his answer the reference manual he was using, a manual used by many engineers and one accepted in the profession, yet the grader apparently felt that the use of only the title was insufficient. He wanted the author's name, publisher, date of publication, and other salient information. Petitioner felt this was unnecessary in light of the well known status of the book. In (b), the problem calls for 10" UCP pipe. All pipe, depending upon the material from which constructed, has a different diameter. Petitioner's solution was marked at least partially incorrect because he assumed the interior diameter of the pipe as .83' when the problem stated the interior diameter was 10". Petitioner contends that even with that unnecessary calculation based on an incorrect assumption, his solution of 2.295 feet/second velocity was sufficiently close to the grader's solution of 2.35 feet/second to be marked correct. Similarly, Petitioner contends his velocity in (c) was within a "tolerable" margin and that his conclusions is "OK". While the grader considered his method in this section as "OK", he marked the calculation almost entirely wrong. This may be related to the formula used by Petitioner in (b) which, he admits, is wrong. He contends he must have brought the wrong number over from his calculations which he accomplished in his test booklet. This booklet is not now available, but, in any case, would not have been seen by the scorer. Petitioner also claims that the gallons per capita per day figure of 100 is the standard "everyone uses" to calculate problems involving sewage. Here, because he was taking an examination, he used a figure of 112.5 gallons per day, a compromise between 100 and 125, which he took from the reference manual without citing page number from which taken. Consequently, he contends the grader's comment that his figure is too high is in error but even if it was too high, he ran the calculations correctly and should be given full credit. It is his position that in a case like this, error on this high side, which would give greater capacity, is better than being short. Being correct would be even better, and Petitioner's solutions was not correct. In the scoring plan outline for this problem, an "8" is described as: QUALIFIED; All categories satisfied, errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking, Results reasonable though not correct. and a "9" is described as: QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied, correct solutions but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. The scorer's comments were: CQ. Fundamentals are correct. Solutions are basically correct and complete but contain math, unit, or tolerance errors making answers unacceptable; or the record is different, or in combination. Here, Petitioner contends that his ultimate solution, only .05 feet/second off in velocity is so close that the error is insignificant. It is close but the difference between an "8" and a "9" lies in the correctness of the ultimate solutions. "Close" is not "correct" and Petitioner's errors are not attributable to misread equations or devices but to his own improper assumptions. Because his calculations were done in a test booklet which is not now available it cannot be determined where the error originates which caused (c) to be marked as it was. Under the circumstances shown here, the score of "8" awarded is not inappropriate. Problem 421 calls for the candidate to find the required volume in cubic feet of on site storage so that post development flows on the parcel of land in question do not exceed the pre-development flows to the existing stream for the 25 year frequency rainfall. Petitioner determined the pre and post development numbers correctly but did the retention area in the old fashioned way resulting in his solution equating to 1/2 of the correct solution. The grader indicated that Petitioner's "procedures [sic] [were] in error here." Petitioner has a one page solution to the problem and got credit for his answer of "4.22" to the first stage of the problem as well as his answer to the second part. He admits, however, that his third step was wrong and that threw the problem answer off. He contends, however, that he was undergraded when awarded a "4" and while he admits to not deserving a "6", feels he should have received a "5". Grades for this problem were awarded on a 2-4-6-8-10 point scale. A "5" was not an authorized score. The scoring plan for this problem describes a "4" as: BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED; Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. A grade of "6" is described as: MINIMALLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied at a minimally adequate level. Here the scorer indicated: Pre and post calculation OK. An attempt at detention calculation made but no significant progress toward conclusion. Fails to demonstrate knowledge necessary to calculate detention as existing. Detention calculations fail to demonstrate knowledge of hydrograph [sic] nature of storage calculations. Only one data point obtained. The comments of the grader on the Petitioner's answer sheet clearly indicate that the answer given was incorrect and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the procedures in issue. Since there is no provision made to award any grade between "4" and "6", and since Petitioner's answer clearly, and by his own admission, does not qualify for a "6", the awarded score of "4" is appropriate. Based on the above, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the scores given him on the problems in issue were incorrect, unsupported, or inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 120, 122, and 421, respectively, of the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered to him on April 15, 1988. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 4th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Smally Longboat Key, Incorporated 501 Bay Isles Road Longboat Key, Florida 33548 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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
Findings Of Fact On March 6, 1991, Mr. Leonard Baldwin, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected the salon known as Wonderful Hairweaving #2, located at 1439 Northeast 4th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. At the time he entered, the owner of the establishment, Kettly Guilbaud, was not present. Mr. Baldwin found two persons working at the salon; one person, a lady who identified herself as Rachel Guillaume, was placing chemicals on the hair of a patron as part of giving a permanent to the patron. The gentleman, who identified himself as St. Armond Iout, was cutting the hair of another patron. Both acknowledged that they had no license from the Department of Professional Regulation to perform cosmetology. Ms. Rachel Guillaume stated that she had only been at the salon for two days and was just there to help out a friend. It is not clear whether this was meant to mean that she was helping Ms. Guilbaud, the owner of the shop, or the person whose hair was being permed. It is more likely that she meant that she was helping Ms. Guilbaud. See Finding 6, below. Mr. Baldwin was not able determine how long Mr. Iout had been working there because of Mr. Iout's great difficulty with English. A customer translated for Mr. Iout, who told Mr. Baldwin through the customer that although he was cutting a man's hair, he did not work there. This is not believable. Mr. Baldwin also found sanitation violations at the salon, in that the implements available for use had not been sanitized, and they were kept in a drawer which was not clean. The sanitation rules were not displayed at the shop. Ms. Guilbaud testified that Rachel Guillaume was there only to answer the telephone and to make appointments for customers who would either call or come to the shop. Ms. Guilbaud was away at another location which she was preparing to open as an additional salon. She also testified that St. Armond Iout was there because the electrical inspector from the City of Fort Lauderdale was to come to the salon to look at some electrical wiring and that Mr. Iout was there only to meet the inspector. In view of Mr. Iout's very limited fluency in English this is unlikely, for he could have been no assistance to the electrical inspector. Rachel Guillaume could have admitted the inspector to the shop. I find the testimony of Mr. Baldwin persuasive, that both Ms. Guillaume and Mr. Iout were either perming or cutting hair. Neither were at the salon for the limited purposes described by Ms. Guilbaud. I accept Ms. Guilbaud's testimony that both Ms. Guillaume and Mr. Iout are not fluent in English, but Mr. Baldwin has not been confused by difficulties in understanding either Ms. Guillaume or Mr. Iout. What is significant is what Mr. Baldwin observed, not what Ms. Guillaume or Mr. Iout tried to explain to him.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, that a final order be entered by the Board of Cosmetology finding Kettly Guilbaud, doing business as Wonderful Hairweaving #2, to be guilty of the acts alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, and that a fine of $600 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of June 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 19th day of June 1992. Copies furnished: Roberta Fenner, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kettly Guilbaud, pro se 1439 Northeast 4th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Ms. Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Palm Beach, County on which is housed Petitioner's paving and landscapping business and which is zoned for industrial use. Petitioner intends to install a manufactured building for use as an office. To provide sewage treatment for the bathroom of the office, Petitioner had a septic tank designed and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was its variance request. As a result of a complaint, Petitioner was inspected in August, 1988, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Both inspections yielded citiations for soil contamination by oil and other hazardous waste. Petitioner represented that most of the infractions had been rectified by the date of the hearing in this matter and pledged full cooperation with the County and State rules. To oversee the operation of the business and assure that no further problems arose, Petitioner decided to establish its office on site. The closest sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and does not intend to provide service to the parcel in the near future. The adjoining properties are serviced by septic tanks. As such, the proof did not demonstrate that alternative methods of waste disposal were available to the site However, as part of its business operation, Petitioner does minor repair of its equipment on site and may include oil changes and other such services. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater and intends to use the proposed septic tank for office use only, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of its equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Further, the proof failed to demonstrate that the septic tank would be protected from use by those who handled the hazardous waste. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner and the proof failed to demonstrate reasonable alternatives of waste disposal, the potential for an adverse affect of the operation to the groundwater is great. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions or whether the property was platted prior to 1972. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Hattie Parker 160 Toneypenna Drive Jupiter, Florida 33468 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
