The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance dated April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is authorized and given the jurisdiction to regulate the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, including drainfields, by septic tank contractors. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor and, as such, he was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, including the installation and repair of drainfields. On or about November 2, 1995, Petitioner issued a permit (Permit No. RP648-95) to Wilmar Rodriguez for the repair of a septic tank system at 417-421 Perry Avenue, Greenacres, Florida. The property was a triplex, which was purchased by Mr. Rodriquez in 1981. Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge as to whether any drainfields were installed or replaced on the property, prior to 1981. The Permit included the installation of a new multi- chambered septic tank, a dosing tank, a lift station, and a new drainfield. The Permit was also for a filled system and called for the drainfield to be 700 square feet. Respondent was indicated as the "agent" on the Permit. Respondent and/or his employees performed the work under the Permit. Respondent was the septic tank contractor for the repair of the septic tank system under the Permit. On November 9, 1995, the construction of the septic tank system was approved by one of Petitioner's inspectors, who was an Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner's inspectors are not present during the entire construction or repair of a septic tank system or drainfield. Usually, inspections are made after the completion of the construction or repair of the septic tank system. Additionally, the inspection of a drainfield is usually performed after the rock has been placed on top of the drainfield. On February 2, 1996, the same inspector performed the inspection after the completion of the construction of the septic tank system, including after the placing of the rock on top of the drainfield. Even though the Permit reflects a filled system, the filled/mound system section on the inspection sheet was crossed out. The inspector considered the system to be a standard system, not a filled or mound system, and, therefore, inspected it as a standard system. In inspecting a drainfield, the inspection by an inspector includes checking to ensure that a drainfield has 42 inches of clean soil below the drainfield. An inspector uses an instrument that bores down through the rock and brings up a sample of the soil, which is referred to as augering. Augering is randomly performed at two locations. For the instant case, the inspector performed the augering in two random locations of the drainfield, which were in the area of the middle top and the middle bottom. The samples failed to reveal anything suspect; they were clean. On February 2, 1996, the inspector issued a final approval for the septic tank system. Final approval included the disposal of "spoil" and the covering of the septic tank system with "acceptable soil". The inspector mistakenly inspected the system as a standard system. He should have inspected the system as a filled system.1 After the repair and installation of the septic tank system by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez continued to have problems with the septic tank system. He contacted Respondent three or four times regarding problems with the system, but the problems persisted. Each time, Respondent was paid by Mr. Rodriguez. Sewage water was flowing into the street where the property was located and backing-up into the inside of the triplex. Having gotten no relief from Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez decided to contact someone else to correct the problem. Mr. Rodriguez contacted Richard Gillikin, who was a registered septic tank contractor. On October 14, 1999, a construction permit was issued to Mr. Rodriguez for the repair of the septic tank system. Mr. Gillikin was indicated as the agent. Mr. Gillikin visited the property site of the triplex and reviewed the problem. He determined that the drainfield was not properly functioning, but he did not know the cause of the malfunctioning. With the assistance of Petitioner's inspectors, Mr. Gillikin and Mr. Rodriguez attempted to determine the best method to deal with the problem. After eliminating options, Mr. Rodriguez decided to replace the drainfield. To replace the drainfield, Mr. Gillikin began excavating. He began removing the soil cover and the rock layer of the drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also wanted to know how deep he had to dig to find good soil. After digging for that purpose and for 10 to 12 inches, he discovered a drainfield below Respondent's drainfield. The drainfield that Mr. Gillikin discovered was a rock bed 12 inches thick in which pipes were located and, as indicated, 10 to 12 inches below Respondent's drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also dug a hole two to three feet deep, pumped the water out of the hole, and saw the old drainfield. Mr. Gillikin determined that the old drainfield extended the full length of Respondent's drainfield. As a result of Mr. Gillikin's determining that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield, both drainfields had to be removed and the expense of a new drainfield increased. Leon Barnes, an Environmental Specialist II for Petitioner, who was also certified in the septic tank program, viewed the drainfield site. He determined that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield and that, therefore, Respondent had not removed the old drainfield. On or about November 6, 1999, Mr. Barnes' supervisor, Jim Carter, and co-worker, Russell Weaver, who is an Engineer, also visited the drainfield site. Mr. Weaver determined that the old drainfield covered a little more than 50 percent of the area under Respondent's drainfield. On November 8, 1999, a construction inspection and a final inspection of the system installed by Mr. Gillikin were performed. The system was approved. Respondent admits that a new drainfield is prohibited from being installed over an old drainfield. However, Respondent denies that he installed a new drainfield over the old drainfield on Mr. Rodriguez's property. In 1995, Respondent failed to completely remove the old drainfield before he installed the new drainfield. The soil and rocks from the old drainfield, which was not functioning, were contaminated spoil material. Because the old drainfield was not completely removed, the contaminated spoil material remained in the drainfield and was used as part of the material in the installation of the new drainfield. Leaving the contaminated spoil material in the new drainfield, prevented the sewage water from being able to percolate through the ground, which is a method of cleansing the sewage water. Without being able to percolate through the ground, the sewage water remained on the surface of the drainfield, creating a serious sanitary nuisance and health hazard. The sewage water spilled onto the street and backed-up into the triplex. Respondent was issued a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Palm Beach County Health Department, enter a final order: Affirming the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance and finding that Noel Sanfiel violated Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1995), and Rule 10D- 6.0571(4), now Rule 64E-6.015(6), and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)1, now 64E-6.022(1)(l)1, Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health (Department or DOH) should fine the Petitioner, Jeffery Benefield, $500 and require him to move the drainfield of his onsite sewage disposal system so that no part of it is within ten feet of the potable water line of his neighbors, the Intervenors, Robert and Wanda Schweigel.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner's home at 10920 Lake Minneola Shores Road (Lake County Road 561-A) was built in 1977. It included an onsite septic tank and drainfield sewage disposal system. On March 31, 2003, the Petitioner personally applied for a permit to repair his existing sewage disposal system by replacing the drainfield. His application did not identify any potable water lines. Department personnel evaluated the site and calculated system specifications, and the Department issued a construction permit on April 3, 2003, based on the estimated size of the existing system. To replace the existing drainfield and meet specifications, 375 square feet of drainfield was required. However, the Petitioner wanted to add 125 square feet to what was required by the specifications, which is acceptable so long as required setbacks are maintained. The Petitioner's drainfield was replaced by a licensed contractor on April 29, 2003. Some work may have been done the following day to complete the job, but it appears that the contractor called for the final inspection on April 29, 2003. On inspection, it was clear that the new drain line closest and (like the other three) parallel to the property line was less than ten feet from a water line, riser, and spigot on the neighboring property, which was owned by Robert and Wanda Schweigel. Specifically, the closest of the new drain lines was estimated to be just five feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot. (The next closest was just under ten feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot.) As a result, the Department disapproved the installation. The Petitioner disputed the disapproval, initially contending that the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot did not convey potable water. It was decided that the new drainfield should be covered while pending a decision as to whether the water line was potable. By the end of July 2003, the Department decided that the Schweigels' water line was indeed potable. In that approximate time frame, the Petitioner's contractor offered to pay to have the Schweigels' water line "sleeved" to a distance at least ten feet from the nearest portion of the Petitioner's drainfield.2 He believed that solution would be much simpler and less costly than moving the Petitioner's drainfield to a distance at least ten feet from any part of the Schweigels' potable water line. This alternative was presented to the Schweigels in that approximate timeframe, but they refused (and continue to refuse.) In August 2003, the Petitioner took the position that, regardless whether the Schweigels' water line was potable, the Petitioner's new drainfield was in the same location as the existing drainfield, and the part of the water line closest to the new drainfield (i.e., the part including the riser and spigot) was not there until after the middle of April 2003 and was recently installed either just before or while the Petitioner's new drainfield was being installed. The evidence was not clear as to the configuration and precise location of the drain lines in the Petitioner's original drainfield. However, it appears to have had three drain lines emanating from the septic tank, starting in the direction of the Schweigels' property and then curving away in the direction of Lake Minneola, which is behind the Petitioner's and the Schweigels' properties, before terminating. The replacement drainfield had pipe emanating from the septic tank and running towards the Schweigels' property line before making a 90-degree turn towards the lake before connecting to the middle of a header pipe. Connecting to the header pipe are four equally-spaced drain lines, one on either end of the header pipe and two in between, that are perpendicular to the header pipe and parallel to each other and to the Schweigels' property line (and potable water line) and run towards the lake. As indicated, it was not clear from the evidence precisely where all of the old drain lines were located, or how close they got to the Schweigels' property (and potable water line.) However, it does not appear that they got as close as two of the four new drain lines in the replacement system. See Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 21. There was conflicting evidence as to when the Schweigels' potable water line was installed. It is clear from the evidence that there are now three "T's" off the water line from the potable water source near the street. One "T- off" leads to near the front corner of the house, one leads to the middle of the side of the house, and one leads to near the rear corner of the house. The line then extends past the last "T" to the location of the water riser and spigot. The Petitioner's evidence proved that the water line riser and spigot now within ten feet of the Petitioner's drainfield were not there either in May 1999 or on April 14, 2003. But the Schweigels maintained, and the evidence as a whole was persuasive, that the potable water lines currently in place were installed in 1996 or 1997, but were cut and moved to enable the Schweigels to install footers for construction of a concrete privacy wall in approximately 1999. After installation of the footers, the water line had to be moved several inches closer to the Schweigels' house when replaced, and the "T's" were reconnected to the line. In approximately April 2003, the water line riser and spigot were damaged (the evidence was not clear how) and had to be replaced. The evidence was that the Schweigels got a permit to build their privacy wall but did not get a permit for the plumbing work that was necessary in conjunction with the installation of the footers for the wall. Although it appears from the evidence that a plumbing permit was required, the Schweigels did not think a separate plumbing permit was necessary. It is not found that the Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order that the Petitioner pay a $500 fine and either: (1) pay the reasonable cost of having the Schweigels' potable water line "sealed with a water proof sealant within a sleeve of similar material pipe to a distance of at least 10 feet from the nearest portion of the system," so long as no portion of the Schweigels' potable water line "within 5 feet of the drainfield shall be located at an elevation lower than the drainfield absorption surface"; or (2) move or relocate his drainfield to meet the setback requirements of the current Rule 64E-6.005(2)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of February, 2005.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents, Anthony Crescenzo and Johns by John II, Inc. (collectively, Respondents), violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(g), (k), (l)2., and (p), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), pursuant to chapters 381 and 489, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. Respondent Anthony Crescenzo is a resident of the State of Florida and holds DOH registration number SR0061541, to provide septic tank contracting services in Florida. Mr. Crescenzo owns and operates Johns by John II, Inc. (Johns by John), a Florida corporation located at 6252 Commercial Way, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida. Johns by John is authorized by the Department to provide septic tank services under Business Authorization number SA0041171. Johns by John provides OSTDS services pursuant to rules adopted by the Department and under the license, registration, and direction of Anthony Crescenzo. Winston and Dianne Wescott reside at 2245 Ring Road in Spring Hill, Florida, and have done so for approximately 19 years. Sometime in April 2014, Mr. Wescott noticed a depression and some saturated soil in his yard, near his septic tank. Mr. Wescott was concerned because of prior sink hole activity. After some telephone calls and an inspection by the insurance adjuster, Mr. Winston called Johns by John. On or about Saturday, June 7, 2014, a worker from Johns by John came to the residence and pumped out the drainfield. At that time, waste was coming out of the ground but was not backing up into the home. After the pump-out was complete, Mr. Wescott showed the technician the depressed area, and an exposed area that revealed that the outlet pipe to the septic system’s distribution box (D-box) was defective. The area had been exposed by either the insurance adjuster or the homeowner before the technician arrived. The technician telephoned Mr. Crescenzo, who advised that he would come out the following Monday or Tuesday to inspect the system and see what additional repairs were necessary. Mr. Wescott paid $205.72 for the pump-out of the drainfield. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Mr. Crescenzo met with Mr. Wescott to assess what repairs were necessary. When he arrived, the homeowner had already dug around the area, leaving the tank and the D-box at least partially exposed. Mr. Crescenzo advised that a new drainfield might be necessary, but did not state that it was absolutely required. He also explained that the repair would require a permit, and that they would do what they could to repair, as opposed to replace, the existing system. Mr. Crescenzo also explained that because of the need to obtain a permit, it might be four to six weeks before the job was completed. Mr. Crescenzo prepared, and Mr. Wescott signed, a Work Order/Proposed Drainfield Estimate form. Under “Job Description,” the following handwritten notation was provided: D-box collapsed down [illegible] point may have to replace entire system $2,500-$3,500. System will need to go in the front due to site conditions 4 bedroom house deposit required $1,000. The preprinted text on the form provided the following statements in bold-faced type: * NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SPRINKLERS, WIRES, BROKEN PIPES, YARD, SOD OR DRIVEWAY DAMAGEDeposits are non-refundable. The form also provided for a 10-year warranty of any work performed. Although the language of the form is not clear, Mr. Crescenzo testified credibly that the warranty was applicable to repairs of the existing system as well as to replacement of the system. While the maximum the homeowner might have to pay is clearly indicated on the form, the costs of a repair short of replacement is not listed. Mr. Crescenzo testified that a $1,000 deposit is required for any job requiring a permit, as the permit itself is $300, and that he told the homeowner that he would not know the extent of the repair needed until he started the work. Mr. Wescott signed the estimate. Despite the language on the estimate that a new drainfield may be needed, Mr. Wescott understood that his drainfield would be replaced. While he admits signing it, he did not recall seeing the statement that deposits are non-refundable, notwithstanding that it is printed in bold type. His understanding appears to be based, in part, on a discussion between Mr. Wescott and Mr. Crescenzo about the continued vitality of the D-box. Mr. Wescott understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the life of the septic system was approximately 19 years (the age of his home), and that if the drainfield was not replaced, the Wescotts would in all likelihood be calling him back in a matter of months to replace it because it was nearing the end of its expected life-span. He also understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the D-box was obsolete and would not be replaced when the drainfield was replaced. Mr. Crescenzo, on the other hand, testified that he always maintained that they would try to repair the existing drainfield but may have to replace it. In the event that the system was replaced, D-boxes are no longer used and the existing one would not be replaced. Mr. Crescenzo denied stating that the life of a drainfield is 19 years, stating that drainfields do not have a standard life expectancy.1/ Mr. Crescenzo also emphasized that the work performed, whether a repair to the existing drainfield or a replacement, was subject to a 10-year warranty, thus making any statement that the company would just have to come back in a few months nonsensical. Mr. Crescenzo’s testimony is credited. Mr. Crescenzo applied for a permit on June 18, 2014, which costs $300. The permit application was to repair or replace the distribution box, not to replace the drainfield, and noted that the D-Box had collapsed. Mr. Crescenzo stated on the application that it may be possible to fix the D-Box and remove roots. The permit was issued for OSTDS repair on June 20, 2014. According to Stephen Kataro, an engineer for the septic tank program for Hernando County who approved the application and inspected the repair, the permit gave the option to replace the drainfield if necessary, based upon what was found during the repair. This approval is consistent with Department policy. On approximately July 3, 2014, Jeremiah Blake, a technician for Johns by John, went to the Wescott home to work on the septic system. Mr. Blake drove a Johns by John truck equipped with the standard equipment to install a drainfield. When he arrived at the home, the system was already uncovered. Mr. Blake discussed the repairs with Mr. Wescott, stating that he could do the drainfield or fix the D-Box. He determined that replacement of the outlet pipe leading to the D-Box addressed the problem, and that there was no need to replace the drainfield, as all drains were taking water. Mr. Blake completed the repair and used Mr. Wescott’s garden hose with a jet-spray nozzle to spray inside the D-Box and clean out the lines. There is an alternative repair method referred to as “jetting” that requires a separate permit that Respondents did not obtain. Jetting requires specialized equipment that Respondents do not own. The unrebutted testimony of both Mr. Wescott and Mr. Blake is that Mr. Blake used a simple garden hose to clear the lines. He is familiar with what the Department refers to as jetting, but has never operated jetting equipment. He uses the term “jetting” because it is an easier way to describe what he does with a simple garden hose to clear the D-Box of sand. When Mr. Blake replaced the pipe leading to the D-Box, he broke sprinkler lines in the area. Sprinkler lines are often, if not always, damaged in OSTDS repairs. Respondents had arranged the day before for a timed inspection, for which they paid an additional fee. The purpose of a timed inspection is to be able to complete the job and have it inspected as soon as it is finished. Mr. Kataro came out to the property at approximately 9:00 a.m., inspected the work performed, determined that it met permit requirements to restore function, and approved it.2/ Mr. Kataro left the site before Mr. Blake covered the system, consistent with standard practice. While Mr. Wescott was present when Mr. Kataro arrived to inspect the work, there was no testimony to indicate Mr. Wescott advised the inspector that he was unhappy with the scope of work performed. Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises for use in covering the area. He testified that he covered the system, including the broken sprinkler pipes, and that he always does so and then notifies the homeowner about the need to fix the sprinkler pipes. Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Wescott testified that Mr. Wescott asked Mr. Blake to remove some sod for him nearby, and paid him cash for doing so. According to Mr. Blake, Mr. Wescott seemed satisfied at this point. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Wescott would be willing to pay additional funds for Mr. Blake to remove sod if he had not covered the system he was supposed to cover and if he was unhappy with the work (or lack of work) performed, and yet not say anything to Mr. Blake about covering the completed repair. Mr. Wescott expected that since the drainfield was not replaced, he would receive some portion of the $1,000 he paid back. Had he realized that the repair would cost that much, he would have gotten estimates from other contractors. He viewed replacing the drainfield as preventative maintenance. Based on this belief, after Mr. Blake left the premises, Mr. Wescott called Mr. Crescenzo and asked about a refund. He did not complain, however, about the system not being covered. Mr. Crescenzo informed him that there would be no refund, as the work order clearly indicates that deposits are non-refundable. The Wescotts called the Johns by John office to get an itemized receipt for insurance purposes. There was some delay in receiving a receipt, so they went to the office to obtain it in person. Initially, they were given a receipt stating that the D- box had been replaced. When they questioned this and told the person working in the office that the D-box had not been replaced, she made some phone calls to verify the work performed. The office worker prepared a new receipt while speaking to someone, presumably Jeremiah Blake, on the phone. The new receipt stated, “connected tank to distribution box. Leveled D-Box to drainfield. Jetted drainfield lines.” The change in the description appears to have occurred more because the person working in the office misunderstood the scope of work performed, rather than any nefarious intent to defraud. Further, the reference to jetting was consistent with both Mr. Blake and Mr. Crescenzo’s shorthand notation for cleaning the line with the garden hose, as opposed to the alternative repair method requiring additional permitting. As noted in paragraph 16, the sprinkler lines were broken during the repairs. Mr. Wescott replaced the broken pipes, and placed bricks underneath them to hold them in place. He was still unhappy about not having a new drainfield in place, and felt that he had been defrauded. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Wescott filed a complaint with Albert Gray, the Environmental Manager at the Department. At the very end of his two-page letter, Mr. Wescott stated that the broken irrigation pipes have been repaired and the hole is still wide open with the tank cover exposed. The Department does not regulate the prices to be charged for repairs or installation of new systems: that is between the contractor and the homeowner. There is more involved to complete the job than the time that the workman is on the premises actually performing the repair. For example, in addition to the cost of the permit application, additional time is necessary to perform a site evaluation and soil test. Whether or not the drainfield must be replaced, the materials must be available to install should it be necessary, as well as the skilled workman and equipment (truck, backhoe, etc.). Further, it is clear that, had Respondents installed a new drainfield, the cost would have been much higher than what the Wescotts actually paid, not only to pay for the drainfield, but also to replace a large section of sod and a larger portion of the sprinkler system. Regardless of whether a new drainfield is installed, contractors are required to cover the OSTDS when they work on it. As a result of the Wescott’s complaint, Inspector Kataro went back out to the Wescott home to inspect the site. He found that the D-Box was lying open and exposed, with no earth covering the system. He took pictures of the area, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits J and K. The pictures show two exposed sprinkler pipes, supported at one end by bricks. One picture shows a bucket positioned over the distribution box, while the other shows the box sealed but not covered. Mr. Kataro testified that the pictures look similar to what he saw when he inspected the property after the repair was completed in July 2014. However, he could not say whether the sprinkler system pipes were broken before, or whether the bricks supporting the pipes were there previously. The testimony is clear that, after the job was inspected, Mr. Wescott made repairs to the sprinkler system that would require the area to be uncovered and Mr. Wescott acknowledged that he placed the bricks under the sprinkler pipes. Mr. Kataro recalled that Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises at the time of repair, but Mr. Kataro left the site before the area would have been covered. There is credible testimony that Mr. Blake covered the area and credible testimony that he did not. Other evidence presented is more consistent with a finding that the area was covered, at least minimally. The equipment for covering the area was by all accounts on site, and Mr. Blake used that equipment to remove sod for Mr. Wescott. It makes little sense for him to use the equipment to remove the sod but not use it for covering the D-Box and surrounding area. Moreover, had Mr. Blake covered the area, it would have to be uncovered to fix the sprinkler pipes. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Blake, as an agent of Respondents, failed to cover the D-box. Respondent Crescenzo happened to be at the Department on August 14, 2014, picking up permits when he learned of the complaint from Mr. Wescott. He was very upset about the complaint and immediately wrote a response while still at the Department. In his response, he denied stating that the drain field would definitely be replaced, and emphasized that by repairing the pipe leading to the D-Box the homeowner saved a substantial amount of money, including not only the cost of installing the drain field, but the re-sodding of his yard and more substantial repair of his sprinkler system. Although clearly unhappy about the complaint, Respondent Crescenzo stated, “If the homeowner wants the system just replaced they should have said that at the time of the job. Or we could still do it if they insist for the original agreed price.” Mr. Wescott has not elected to accept Respondents’ offer. In his response, Crescenzo also referred to “jetting,” but used it in the same informal manner as Mr. Blake. His informal reference did not change the unrebutted testimony regarding the scope of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hance B. Jones, is a registered septic tank contractor. The Petitioner is charged with regulating septic tanks, and may initiate charges against septic tank contractors which fail to comply with the statutes and rules regulating septic tanks. The Department's local inspector, Mr. Land, was asked by a representative of Best Septic Tank Contracting to meet with the Best representative and Ms. Inez Quiett at Ms. Quiett's home and confer about a proposed septic tank repair. On March 5, 1992, Mr. Land visited the site, observed water standing around an area which he was advised was the existing septic tank and drain field, and was asked what would have to be done. Mr. Land advised that they would have to obtain a permit, and that the new drain field would have to be separated by at least 24 inches from the wet season water table, and that this would entail placing the drain field in a mound. Mr. Land left the site expecting to have a representative of Best pick up a permit for the repairs within a few days. When Mr. Land did not see anyone come in about the permit, he drove by Quiett's, and observed disturbed soil in the area of the drain field. He stopped, went to the Quiett's house, and spoke with Ms. Quiett's son. The son advised that they had repaired the drain field. Mr. Land asked who had repaired the field, and the son advised him that Mr. Jones had repaired it. On April 22, 1992, Mr. Land then wrote a letter to the Respondent and advised Jones that he had violated the law by repairing Quiett's septic tank and not obtaining a permit for the repair. Mr. Jones spoke with Land at Land's office, and denied that he had repaired the septic tank. Mr. Jones stated he had provided the materials and equipment used to repair the tank. On April 22, 1992, Ms. Quiett called Mr. Land on the telephone, and told Land that Mr. Jones had helped her with the tank, but denied that Jones had been her contractor. The Respondent denied that he was the contractor of the job; denied he was on the site; denied he supervised the work; and denied he received any compensation from Quiett. He indicated that he knew Ms. Quiett's brothers, who were contractors, and admitted that he had provided the materials used on the job and had loaned them his backhoe. Ms. Quiett was asked about the repairs to the system and invoked her privilege against self-incrimination.
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 the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: David West, Esquire District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Bobby Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, FL 32054 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent's permit for disposal of septic tank sludge should be revoked, as set forth in letter of the Volusia County Health Department, dated February 15, 1979. This case was originally set for hearing on June 21, 1979, pursuant to Notice of Hearing, dated March 30, 1979. On June 20, Respondent Philip G. Koan orally advised the Hearing Officer that he wished to withdraw his request for hearing. He was advised by the Hearing Officer to submit a written withdrawal of the petition and that the scheduled hearing would be cancelled pending receipt. On June 21, Respondent orally advised the Hearing Officer that he had changed his mind after reflection and now desired that the hearing be rescheduled. Since no written withdrawal of the petition or voluntary dismissal had been filed, the case was renoticed for hearing to be held on September 10, 1979. At the commencement of the hearing on that date, Petitioner moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction claiming that the petition had been dismissed by Respondent by his oral communication to the Hearing Officer on June The motion was denied because the proceeding had never been formally terminated by action of the Respondent or the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1978, Respondent Koan Septic Tank, Inc., Deland, Florida, submitted an application to the Volusia County Health Department for a permit to operate a septic tank cleaning service and temporary privy service. The application reflected the equipment which the applicant intended to use for the operation. Petitioner's application form contained a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The applicant inserted the words "Smith Farm and Greens Dairy Grove" on the form. On November 7, 1978, Larry Herman, a sanitation aide for the County Health Department, performed an inspection of Respondent's facilities and equipment, and prepared a report on a mimeographed form headed "Septic Tanks and Privy Pump Truck Inspection." This form had a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The inspector entered the words "Smith Farm - Greens Diary (sic), dumped & tilled." Although Herman testified that he had made no special inquiry at the time of his inspection as to the intended method of sludge disposal, he was aware that Respondent's customary method at its Smith Farm location was to "bury" the sludge into the ground by spreading and mechanical tilling. However, he recalled having conversations with Respondent's owner, Philip G. Koan, concerning disposal of sludge by the action of worms, prior to and after his inspection. On the other hand, both Koan and another officer of the corporation testified that Koan advised Herman at the time of the latter's inspection that the worm method of disposal would be used at the Greens Dairy location and that he expressed no objections. It is found that Herman was advised of Respondent's proposed method of disposal at the time of the inspection; however, he was not authorized to approve or issue permits. (Testimony of Herman, Gnann, Koan, Page, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2) On November 7, 1978, the Volusia County Health Department issued a permit authorizing Respondent to operate its establishment. The permit reflected an expiration date of September 30, 1979, and provided that violation of any applicable health law would revoke the permit. No conditions were attached to the permit, nor did it indicate any required method of sludge disposal. (Testimony of Page, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent has been in the business of manufacturing, installing and servicing septic tanks for approximately eighteen years. In addition, Koan conducted a business involving the sale of worms. In the fall of 1978, he had approximately 12,000 pounds worms on hand. He had conducted various experiments at his business premises utilizing worms to dispose of manure and septic tank sludge. He found that the worms would eat the sludge material and excrete the same, resulting in worm "castings" or material which resembles potting soil with no residual odor. He had also placed worms in clogged septic tank drain fields and found that they later became unclogged, thus resulting in his conclusion that worms had disposed of the septic tank material in the tank. He further discovered that odors associated with septic tank sludge dissipated in a very short time when worms were present in the material, and observed that one pound of worms would "digest" or dispose of one pound of sludge in approximately twenty-four hours. Therefore, prior to receiving the county permit, he deposited the 12,000 pounds of worms in a trench located at the Greens Dairy location. After receiving the permit, Respondent dumped septic tank sludge in the trench approximately three times a week. The trench was about four feet wide, one foot deep, and 200 feet long. A screen was placed over the top of the ditch. However, it did not prevent access to files. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Petitioner's Exhibits 8-9) On December 12, 978, the owner of a skating rink adjacent to Respondent's Green Dairy property complained to the County Health Department concerning the presence of odors and flies at her establishment which had been the subject of customer complaints. A county sanitarian inspected the sludge operation on that date and found that there was some odor and a few flies in the immediate vicinity, but no fly larvae was observed. The ditch was full of sludge at the time. Some spillage has occurred in the driveway on the property. The location is approximately two to three hundred feet from the rear of the skating rink. A further inspection by the county Director of the Environmental Health Section was made on December 27. As a result, he wrote Respondent on December 28 that, although the inspection showed that flies and odors were minimal at the time, he could foresee an escalation of the same during certain periods, together with increased complaints from local businessmen. The letter further stated that the use of septic tank sludge for enriching a "worm bed" was in violation of Chapter 10D6.29, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386 Florida Statutes, and was a sanitary nuisance which must be abated. A further complaint in January, 1979, followed by another county inspection revealed essentially the same conditions that existed at the time of the prior inspection, and prompted a second letter from the Environmental Health Section director to Respondent on January 31, 1979, wherein he was advised to cease dumping septic tank sludge at the Greens Dairy location within fourteen days and commence using the county sanitary landfill for such purposes. As a result of this letter, Respondent stopped dumping at the location on or about February 2. On February 15, another county letter was sent to Respondent which advised that its permit for disposal of septic tank sludge was revoked, subject to a request for hearing, as being in violation of Chapter 10D6.29(1) and (3)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386.041(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The stated grounds for proposed revocation were that Respondent was employing an unsatisfactory and unacceptable method and place for disposal of waste, and was maintaining a condition capable of breeding flies, mosquitoes and other insects capable of transmitting diseases. The letter further stated that Respondent was not tilling the sludge as had been stated on the permit application and that the potential for breeding flies was evident due to concentration and lack of covering with soil. (Testimony of Tyndall, Van Ulzer, Page, Camp, Koan, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-7) During the approximate three-month period from November 1978 through January 1979 when Respondent was dumping sludge, a strong and distinctive odor and an unusually large number of flies were experienced on the skating rink premises nearby. After the dumping stopped in early February, both problems disappeared. However, other odors incident to the presence of hogs and chickens at farms in the area also produced a noxious odor in and around the skating rink. The odor produced by the dumping of sludge dissipates rapidly after dumping. The absence of fly larvae in and around the ditch shows that flies were not breeding there during the period of dumping operations, but does not rule out the potential for such breeding in the future. (Testimony of Munshower, Tyndall, Coffin, Branton, Tontone, Warnock, Hunt, Stipulation) The Volusia County Health Department issues permits involving the disposal of sludge only when a treatment method of burial, incineration, or sanitary landfill is used in the operation, as prescribed by Respondent's Rule 10D-6.29, Florida Administrative Code. However, long-standing policy permits disposal by mechanical tilling of the sludge into soil as a "modified" method of burial. This method cuts the sludge with a disc and harrow and mixes it into the soil to a depth of approximately four inches. It also produces a temporary odor when the sludge is first spread on the soil. The county has no policies concerning the use of worms to dispose of sludge and does not consider it to be an acceptable method of disposal. The County Health Department has not conducted any scientific tests to determine the presence of pathogens in soil which has been mechanically tilled with sludge. (Testimony of Page) When sludge is placed over a "worm bed" and has settled, the material begins moving as the worms eat the sludge. The residue of the digestive process is sold as a soil conditioner which meets State Department of Agriculture requirements and which contains plant nutrients. Earth worms multiply rapidly when feeding on sludge. Respondent had approximately 50,000 pounds of worms in its trench when it ceased operations in February 1979. This method of sludge disposal has not been accepted generally by health authorities as a recognized and acceptable procedure. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Hunt, Tontone, Nemeyer, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent's Permit No. 18362 be permitted to remain in effect until its expiration date provided that it disposes of sludge and/or contents from septic tanks in an acceptable method, as provided in Rule 10D-6.29, F.A.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS District IV Counsel 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2050 Jacksonville, Florida Craig James, Esquire Post Office Drawer DD Deland, Florida 32720 Department of HRS Attn: Eric J. Haugdahl 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, James A. Tipton ("Tipton"), has been a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0018147, which expires on January 31, 1987. Tipton employed the services of Robert Corno as a field man for taking samples to establish soil profiles, site characteristics and existing water tables for septic tank applications prepared and filed by Tipton. Corno had actual authority from Tipton to conduct tests, site examinations and evaluations and to submit his findings to Tipton. Sometime before April 8, 1985, Tipton was retained to perform professional engineering services in connection with the preparation and filing of an application for a septic tank on lot 168, block 3, Charlotte Ranchettes Subdivision in Charlotte County ("lot 168"), owned by Joseph Duseo. Tipton sent Corno to lot 168 on April 13, 1985, to examine and evaluate the site, take soil samples and make other observations that would have to be reported to Tipton in connection with Tipton's work. Corno completed his work and reported to Tipton. Corno did not bring Tipton the actual soil samples. On April 8, 1985, Duseo's general contractor told Corno about a well on lot 168. When Corno visited the site, he observed the well. The well is an artesian well, about 3 feet high and six inches in diameter. The well is an irrigation-type well and is non-potable. The well was within fifty feet of the drain field of the septic system Tipton proposed for lot 168. The well also is approximately 5 to 10 feet from the north property line. Corno knew at the time of his visit to the site that the well was not plugged. However, Corno understood that Duseo was in the process of arranging with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to have the well plugged. Corno did not tell Tipton about the well before Tipton prepared and filed the application for the proposed septic tank. Therefore, Tipton did not know there was a well on lot 168 when he was preparing the application for the septic tank permit. Tipton did not ask Corno any questions calculated to reveal whether there was a well on lot 168. Corno held the belief that non-potable wells, especially those that were to be plugged, did not have to be shown on septic tank permit applications. There was evidence about a survey of lot 168 certified by a land surveyor employed by a firm of professional engineers which did not show any well on lot 168. However, Tipton did not have access to the survey before he prepared the septic tank permit application on lot 168. (The survey bears two dates, April 17 and April 18, and was not signed until April 25, 1985.) On or about April 15, 1985, Tipton signed and certified the septic tank permit application for lot 168. The application was filed at the Charlotte County Public Health Unit (Health Department) on April 16, 1985. The application indicates "none" in the space provided to indicate the "location of wells within 75 feet of property lines." The well on lot 168 is an important consideration which should have been depicted on the application. Septic tank drain fields could pollute a well. Even if Tipton had known that the well was supposed to be plugged, it was not plugged until July 1985. Failure to show the well was a serious omission. Tipton was negligent for relying on Corno without having an understanding whether Corno would report to him the existence of non-potable wells within 50 feet of the drain field of a septic system or within 75 feet of a property line if the well was likely to be plugged. If he had used due care, Tipton would have either made explicit inquiry of Corno sufficient to reveal the existence of the well or ascertained from Corno in advance that he would report to Tipton the existence of any well within 50 feet of the drain field of a proposed septic system or within 75 feet of property lines. Having failed to exercise due care, Tipton did not realize that Corno would not be reporting to him the existence of a non-potable well which was supposed to be plugged in the future. A few days after he filed the application, Tipton learned about the well on lot 168. But at about the same time, Duseo and his contractor began discussing construction alternatives that would change the septic system and require a new septic tank application. Therefore, Tipton did not immediately amend the April 15 application to show the well. In mid-May, Tipton filed a new application for the different septic system. The new application, not in issue in this case, showed the well. The application also contained a soil profile which probably is not accurate. However, Tipton's soil profile simply reflects the information reported to him by Corno. While Tipton's soil profile does not correspond with soil profiles from other test holes dug in the area of the proposed drain field by the Health Department and an expert witness, the information Corno reported to Tipton was well within the realm of possibilities for soil in the area of lot 168. Corno generally seemed to be a qualified and experienced field man who used proper tools to do his job. There was nothing suspicious about Corno's information, and there was no reason for Tipton to suspect that it was false or fraudulent. While it is the better practice for a professional engineer to require his field man to deliver the actual soil sample to support a soil profile report, this is not required of professional engineers if there is no reason to suspect that a field man's soil profile report is false or fraudulent. On the application, Tipton estimated the high water table on lot 168 at 2.2 feet below existing grade. While other expert witnesses estimated a higher high water table, the evidence did not prove that Tipton was negligent in his estimate. Some of the conflicting estimates were Health Department estimates which, the evidence indicates, tend to be high to be on the safe side. Others were estimates on permit applications which may have been influenced by the Health Department's desires and which may not reflect the engineers' actual estimates. Of all the estimates, only Tipton's was supported by testimony how the estimate was derived. (Tipton used what he called Darcy's Law.) Finally, Petitioner's own expert witness testified that Tipton's high water table estimate could not be called negligent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order holding Respondent, James A. Tipton, guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering under Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint (but dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint) and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sarah Logan Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Charles Heekin, Esq. C-1 Ocean Plaza 21202 Ocean Blvd. Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX The following are specific rulings on all the parties' proposed Findings of Fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 3, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 21 and 22 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the last sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 5 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the third sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 17, 18 and 27 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that they are unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that whether Alligator Creek is a "significant" drainage feature would depend on the definition of "significant" which was not established by the evidence. In addition, Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 6 through 8 are rejected as conclusions of law and because the last sentence of Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is cumulative. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 is rejected because the first sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is, subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 12, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected as subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 25 is rejected because the first sentence is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact 1 through 3, 5 and 12 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 8 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 9 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact that there is "no way" for an engineer to avoid relying on a field man's error such as Corno's error in omitting to report the existence of the well. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 14 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is rejected because it is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 7 is rejected because it is simply a recitation of conflicting evidence, some of which is accepted but some of which is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, it was found that Corno did not tell Tipton about the well and that Tipton did not have the survey in his possession at the time the application was filed. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 10 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, the evidence supported a finding of negligence on the part of Tipton for failure to utilize due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles whether or not practicing in Charlotte County. In addition, Mr. Murray's expert testimony must be disregarded because it was given upon a hypothetical assumption that an engineer had possession of a sealed survey showing no improvements on the property as the time of the application, a fact not proved by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 13 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, personnel in the Health Department, part of the "general public," were misled. (The general public also reasonably could have been led to a fallacious conclusion, but there was no "misconduct" on Tipton's part. See Conclusions of Law.) ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2684 DPR CASE NO.0058289 JAMES A. TIPTON, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alexis Crlenjak is the owner of an unimproved lot approximately 90 feet by 230 feet in size which abuts Black Creek in Clay County, Florida. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) By application received by the St. Johns River Subdistrict of the Department of Environmental Regulation on September 9, 1980, Petitioner sought a permit to place approximately 1,000 cubic yards of clean fill dirt over an area of 90 by 130 feet to a depth of 3 feet on the southern portion of his lot. The stated purpose for the request was to enable Petitioner to obtain a county permit to install a septic tank and drainfield in the filled portion of the lot. Such a permit previously had been denied by the county for the reason that inadequate drainage for a septic tank existed in the lot's present natural condition. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) Subsequent to receipt of the application, DER's Subdistrict Office solicited comments or objections to the proposed project from adjacent landowners and various governmental agencies. An adjoining landowner, Frederick G. Flagge, filed an opposition to the concept of placement of a septic tank and drainfield next to his land due to the possibility of seepage and contamination. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, expressed the view that placement of fill material in flood plain wetlands to raise the elevation for a septic tank placement is not in the public's interest and recommended denial of the application, and suggested that the applicant utilize the upland portion of his property for such purpose. The Southeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, concluded that the work would adversely impact fishery resources by filling productive wetlands and made a similar recommendation to that of the EPA. A representative of the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the area in November 1980, and found that the proposed project would destroy 0.27 acres of wetlands which provide nesting, feed and shelter habitat for various species of birds, maimals and reptiles. The agency therefore recommended that any fill be limited to upland areas. The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial because the project would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources by eliminating a protective wetland habitat. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) Petitioner's lot is bounded on the north by Black Creek, on the east by a dredged canal which terminates at a boat basin immediately south of his property. A filled driveway separates Petitioner' s land from the Flagge property to the west. Although the area surrounding the north bank of Black Creek is still in a natural condition, Petitioner's and Flagge's lots are practically the only ones on the south bank in that area which are undeveloped and still in a relatively natural state. The northern border of Petitioner's property is high and dry due to the berm along Black Creek which has been deposited over the years and has become vegetated. However, the southern half is a hardwood swamp area where blackgum is the dominant species, together with other species such as buttonbush, water ash, dahoon, willow, water locust, red maple and sweetgum. Black Creek is classified as a Class III body of water under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The type of vegetation on the southern portion of Petitioner's lot is associated with periodic inundation during seasonal rainfall, and is thus deemed to constitute the landward extent of waters of the state pursuant to the vegetative indices of Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. After receiving the application an environmental specialist in Respondent's subdistrict office visited the site and thereafter prepared a Permit Application Appraisal. He identified the various species of plant life located in the area to be filled and determined that it was properly within Respondent's jurisdiction. His appraisal found that the swamp area in question benefits the water quality of Black Creek by filtering sediments and assimilating pollutants generated by upland runoff. He also found that the area is a fish and wildlife habitat, provides flood control, and serves as a primary food source for fish and wildlife. He therefore determined that the proposed project would result in the elimination of those biological resources that aid in maintaining water quality and would further degrade water quality by adding septic tank waste in close proximity to the waterway. He concluded that the project as proposed would induce flooding on the lot to the West by blocking the flow through the swamp which presently is connected by a culvert under the filled driveway to the west. His supervisor subsequently visited the site and agreed with the application appraisal. It was their combined opinion that filling of the land would eventually lead to eutrophication of the adjacent canal and adversely affect the water quality of Black Creek. At the time of their visits, the DER personnel did not observe standing water on Petitioner's property, but did so on the adjacent lot to the west. (Testimony of Rector, Tyler, Exhibit 2) As a result of the adverse application appraisal, Respondent advised Petitioner on December 9, 1980, of its intent to deny the application based on the loss of submerged land, and anticipated water quality degradation by replacing the aquatic ecosystem with a septic tank and drain ield which has a potential for leaking into the adjacent canal. The Notice of Intent to Deny further specified state water quality standards which would be adversely affected, and found that the applicant had not provided the department with affirmative reasonable assurances that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in a violation of state water quality standards. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) At the hearing, Petitioner scaled down his request by stating that he now only wished to fill an area approximately 25 feet by 40 feet in the southwest corner of his lot to serve as the drainfield for a septic tank. However, the DER personnel who had reviewed the project testified that their recommendation of denial would not be changed in spite of the reduced proposed filling activity. They were of the opinion that the same considerations which led to the denial recommendation would still be present, except on a smaller scale. They indicated that Petitioner could still use his land, in spite of the permit denial, for recreational activities, or by erecting a "stilt" house on the lower half of the lot. However, in such an eventuality, the septic tank and drainfield would have to be placed on the upland portion of the lot. As petitioner pointed out, this cannot take place under current health regulations in view of the fact that a well is located on the north side of the adjacent lot, and the spacing distance would be insufficient for state and county permitting purposes. Although Petitioner denied that a culvert existed under the driveway separating the lots, he conceded that he had not visited the property for about a year. (Testimony of Tyler, petitioner, Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 12th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Victoria J. TSchinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Alexis Crlenjak Assistant General Counsel Route 2, Box 618 Department of Environmental Havana, Florida 32333 Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1984, Lawrence E. Bennett, a consultant engineer for Peninsula, forwarded to DER's domestic waste engineering section an application to construct/operate a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system along with the appropriate plans and a check for the fee. The package included proposals for construction of a 300,000 gpd splitter box and addition of a 100,000 gpd contact stabilization plant. Thereafter, on May 22, 1985, Mr. Bennett submitted a revised copy of the application pertaining to the 100,000 gpd expansion initially submitted as above. The revised application reflected Peninsula's proposed outfall to the Halifax River which was applied for under separate permit. By application dated October 7, 1983, as revised on May 15, 1985, Peninsula proposed to construct an outfall discharge into the Halifax River from the secondary treatment plant. By letter dated October 29, 1984, Mr. Bennett advised DER, inter alia, that the discharge rate would be an ADF of 1.25 mgd. The application for the additional 100,000 gpd plant and splitter box also provided for a chlorination facility. This expansion was needed because 200,000 gpd capacity is already committed to serve current residents and customers of the utility. The new construction is designed to accommodate established future demand. In Mr. Bennett's opinion, the design of this facility will accommodate all DER criteria and standards. The outfall facility proposed in the second project will be a pvc forced main for a part of the distance with iron pipe for the remainder and a lift station attached to pump the effluent to a point in the river selected where the river is deep enough to meet DER water criteria. The initial permit application on this project called for discharge into a portion of the river which did not meet water quality standards. As a result; DER suggested discharge point closer to the center of the river, and this change is now planned. At this point, the outflow will meet DER standards. Intents to issue the permits, as modified, were issued in August 1985. Peninsula has also filed for permits with the Florida Public Utilities Commission, the United States EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for these projects. The plans are based on the estimated population expansion called for in the next few years. Peninsula is fully capable, financially, of providing and paying for the projected improvements. In the past, it has always provided sufficient funding to do that which is called for under its permits and which is necessary. The waters in question here are Class III waters of the State, mainly recreational. There is no shellfish harvesting in the area because of the pollution of the Halifax River, condition which has existed since at least 1941. Results of tests conducted by experts for Peninsula show the quality of the water presently coming out of the treatment plant is cleaner than that currently existing in the Halifax River. The outfall pipe in question will have the capability of handling approximately 1,200,000 gpd. Latest reports from the water treatment plant indicate that the current average daily flow is 150,000 gpd representing approximately 75% of capacity. The design estimated for this project was based on a 250 gpd per unit use rate multiplied by the estimated number of units presently existing and to be constructed in the period in question. It is estimated however, that within two to three years even this project will be insufficient and Peninsula will have to file an additional request for expansion. Construction will have no detrimental environmental effect on the waters of the Halifax River. Mr. Bennett recommends discharge into the river rather than pumping the effluent backup to Port Orange because the local dissipation rate into the Halifax River, which is called for under these projects, is much quicker than that at Port Orange. Studies run on siting of the outfall pipe location which is close to Daggett Island included studies relating to dilution calculation and water quality of the effluent versus water quality of the river near the outfall. The project was, therefore, sited in such a manner as to provide for the least possible detrimental effect. Those studies, however, were for the original outfall location, not the present location as proposed by DER which is approximately 150 to 200 feet away. In the experts' opinion, however, there is very little difference in the two sites. The Daggett Island site is not unique in any way. It is a mangrove swamp of approximately 3 to 4 acres with nothing on it. Once the pipe is buried, it will be difficult to know that it is there. Even during construction, there would be little detrimental effect or disruption to the river ecology. Mr. Bennett's conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Miller; a DER engineer specializing in wastewater facility permits who has reviewed the plans for expansion of the plant for completeness and adequacy and found that they were both. The approval of the outfall pipe initially was made in Tallahassee based on the original siting. He reviewed it again, however, and determined that both projects are environmentally sound and conform to the DER standards. Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires surface water discharge to have secondary treatment activity prior to discharge and the discharge cannot exceed 20% 80D and suspended solids. According to DER studies; the secondary treatment afforded the water at this location was adequate with the caveat that the District might want to require an extension of the outfall to the main channel of the river to promote tidal flushing of the effluent. It was this change which was; in fact, made by the District office. Without the change, the incoming tide would take the wastewater up into Daggett Creek. By moving it as suggested, west of the point of Daggett Island, the tide would go up river rather than into the creek taking the effluent with it. Concern over the creek is due to its limited natural flushing as opposed to the greater natural flushing of the river. It was the intent of all parties to achieve the desired result and move the outfall point; if at all possible, at no increase in cost. Consequently, the pipeline was moved at the same length with a slight possible addition to take the outlet to the same depth and this change became a condition to the issuance of the permit. The Peninsula will also need a dredge and fill permit in order to accomplish the work in question. The outfall plans (both construction and discharge) meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent provisions of Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. DER evaluated post- construction, concluding that the new point source discharge would not violate these standards. However, prior to approval of these projects, DER did not perform a biological, ecological, or hydrographic survey in the area. As a result, it cannot be said that the criteria outlined in Rule 17-4.29(6), Florida Administrative Code, will not be adversely affected by the outfall pipe. Nonetheless, these surveys were not deemed necessary here. EPA denial of the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, would have no impact on DER's intent to issue the instant permits. NPDES permits have no bearing on the state permitting process. If the NPDES permit is denied, the utility cannot discharge its effluent into the river. The state permit merely authorizes the construction. The NPDES permit applies to the outfall portion of the project, not to the treatment plant. Only if it could be shown there was a longstanding adverse effect on the water quality so as to bring it below standards, would this construction not be permitted. The depth of the water in the proposed area of the outfall is five feet. A 12-inch pipe would extend below the soil with an upturn to exit into the bottom of the river. Short term impacts of actual construction are not relevant to the permitting process. If there are any, they would be related to and considered in the dredge and fill permitting process. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, a DER water quality specialist who, in his analysis of the instant projects, first looked at the plans for the outfall just a week before the hearing. By this time, the water quality section of DER had previously considered the project and he is familiar with the suggested change in the outfall location. In November 1985, he spent several days on a boat on the Halifax River in this area collecting data. His inquiry and examination showed that in the area in question, there are no grass beds, oyster beds, or anything significant that would be adversely affected by the location of the pipe and the outlet. The pipe outlet, as suggested, is far enough out into the river to keep it under sufficient water at all times to promote adequate flushing. In his opinion, the proposed discharge will be quickly diluted and will not violate the standards or other criteria set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. In contrast to the above, Mr. Richard Fernandez, a registered civil engineer with a Master's Degree in environmental engineering, who did a study of these projects for TPI, indicated that the County 201 plan relating to this area, mandated by the federal government, calls for the eventual closing of all independent wastewater treatment plants with ultimate delivery of all wastewater to the Port Orange facility. If implemented, this plan calls for the conversion of the Peninsula facility to a pump station for the transmittal of effluent to Port Orange. In his opinion, the proposed discharge standard, as evaluated here, for the secondary treatment facility, is very high for such a facility. He feels the surface water discharge content of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids should be lower. In addition, he is of the opinion that the degree of treatment of discharged water required by the facilities in question here is too low and lower than typical secondary discharge points elsewhere in the area. Nonetheless, Mr. Fernandez concludes that while the intended facility here would probably not lower the quality of river water below standards, it is not in the public interest to construct it. Having considered the expert testimony on both sides, it is found that the construction requested here would not create sufficient ecological or environmental damage to justify denial. The proposals in the 201 plan calling for the transmittal of all effluent to Port Orange would not be acceptable to DER. The cost of such a project and the ecological damage involved would be so great as to render the project not even permittable. The currently existing percolation ponds used by the facility at Port Orange are not adequate to serve current needs and leech pollutants into the surrounding waterway. While the exact transmission routes called for under the 201 plan are not yet set, there would be substantial ecological problems no matter what routing is selected. There would be substantial damage to bird habitat, mangrove, and other protected living species unless some way were found to get the pipe across the river in an environmentally sound fashion. Consequently, DER has taken the position that the current proposals by Peninsula are superior to any plan to transmit waste to Port Orange.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED THAT DER: Enter an order dismissing with prejudice Volusia County's Petition in DOAH Case No. 85-3029 and, Issue permits to Peninsula Utilities, Inc., for the construction of a 100,000 gpd expansion to its existing wastewater treatment plant and to construct a river outfall line as was called for in the amended specifications listed in the application for this project. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin S. Friedman, Esquire Myers, Kenin, Levinson & Richards 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lester A. Lewis, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Barkin, Gordon, Morris and Lewis, P.A. P. O. Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Ray W. Pennebaker, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P. O. Box 429 Deland, Florida 32720 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, TPI 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 17. 3-4. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Peninsula 1-13. Accepted in the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, DER 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. 2-3. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 20 and 21. 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8 and 21. 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 12-13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 14-15. Rejected as a statement of evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Recitation of Mr. Miller's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. The conclusions of Mr. Mandrup- Poulsen's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Recitation of Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's testimony testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Recitation of testimony is rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Conclusions drawn from that testimony accepted in Finding of Fact 24.
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 David D. Boak, Petitioner, owns a 3/4 acre lot at 9602 East Flora Street on which he proposes to put a two-bedroom house trailer. The area is rural in nature. There is no sewage service to the area and none is currently planned. Soil samples taken at the site show that from 9 inches to 48 inches below the surface the soil is a mixture of Manatee and Pompano fine sands which have poor percolation qualities. Soil Survey for Hillsborough County (Exhibit 1) describes the limitations of these soils for septic tank use as severe with wetness. Petitioner contends that he has lived on this property for 21 years and has had his septic tank pumped out once, 11 years ago; that he has never seen this property flooded; nor has he seen water standing on the property more than minutes following a heavy rain. Respondent's witnesses testified the water table at this site is 13 inches below the surface and septic tanks will not work properly in this area. When Petitioner's initial application for a permit was denied, he applied for a waiver. The application for waiver was presented to the review group pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10D-6.45(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the review group recommended the waiver be granted. However, the Staff Director, Health Program Office, denied the waiver and this appeal followed. The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority has condemned the land in this area, including that owned by Petitioner, for use as a county airport site. That condemnation proceeding is currently in litigation. If this property is ultimately taken for airport purposes, Petitioner will have no use for the variance here sought. Testimony was presented that the soil conditions plus the wetness factor make the site unsuitable for the installation of a septic tank. No evidence was presented regarding the pollution of surface waters by a septic tank in this area or whether public health will or will not be impaired if a septic tank is installed.
