The Issue The issue in this case is whether a variance for a reduced setback from Petitioner's well to Respondent Allen C.D. Scott, II's (Scott) septic system should be granted by the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact Allen C.D. Scott, II, owns property designated as Lot 13, Block 11, Vilano Beach Subdivision, 40 Viejo Street in St. Johns County, Florida. Mr. Scott's property is undeveloped, except for a drinking water well located in the northwest quadrant of his property. The well was installed within the past year. There are residential homes on the north, south, and west sides of the property. The beach is on the east of the property. The property is 50 feet wide and 125 feet deep. The property is not served by a public or private utility; thus, Mr. Scott must provide his own drinking water well and septic system. Mr. Scott purchased the property from Alexander A. Morese, Jr. Mr. Scott was Morese's attorney of record for issues concerning this property and the proposed septic tank system. The neighboring property to the north of Mr. Scott's property is owned by Petitioner, May Bobbitt. Petitioner has two wells on her property. A fairly recently-installed drinking water well and an irrigation well. The irrigation well, is located 30 feet from a site on Mr. Scott's property proposed for an on-site septic system. The location of the proposed septic tank is less than the required setback from a septic system to an irrigation well of 50 feet. The potable drinking water well is 225 feet deep, pit- cased and terminates in the Floridan aquifer. It is within 65 feet of Ms. Bobbitt's septic tank system and is located 50 feet from the proposed site of Mr. Scott's septic system. The location of the proposed septic tank is less than the required setback from a potable drinking water well to a septic system of 75 feet. The initial permit for Ms. Bobbitt's drinking water well was denied based on its proximity to her septic tank. Ms. Bobbitt challenged the denial in an informal proceeding before DOH (DOH case number 97-023H). Mr. Morese played some role in that proceeding. In the meantime, the initial septic tank permit application filed by Mr. Morese was denied by DOH based on the location of Ms. Bobbitt's drinking water well. Mr. Morese appealed the denial to the DOAH Case No. 98-3283. Sometime in late 1997, DOH granted Ms. Bobbitt a variance for a 65-foot setback distance from her drinking water well to her septic system. The variance resulted after settlement of the administrative actions involving May Bobbitt and Mr. Morese's permitting her well and Mr. Morese's septic tank. The variance was granted because the construction of the well prevents contamination of the well from the septic system. Both cases were separately terminated. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Morese applied to DOH for a variance to reduce the setback distances from Petitioner's two wells to Mr. Morese's proposed septic system. Since Mr. Morese's property was 50 feet wide and Mr. Morese desired to build a two-bedroom home on the property, there was limited area available to construct the septic system. The proposed septic system is located in the only area available for such a system and is the same location proposed by Respondent Scott. A sign was posted on Mr. Morese's property notifying Ms. Bobbitt of Mr. Morese's variance request. The variance committee recommended approval of the Morese variance with specific provisos at their December 1997, meeting. Dr. Richard Hunter, Department of Health Deputy State Health Officer, approved the variance with provisos by letter to Mr. Morese on December 17, 1997. The letter stated the approval as follows: The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be set back from the irrigation well on lot 14 by the maximum distance attainable but not less than 30 feet when installed. The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be set back from the drinking water supply well on lot 14 by the maximum distance attainable but not less than 50 feet when installed. The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system drainfield elevation shall be based on a seasonal high water table no lower than 12 inches below existing grade based on William G. Harb's report of November 13, 1997. The variance approval was not challenged by Petitioner or any other neighbor. The variance was granted for a period of one year from the date of Dr. Hunter's letter. As indicated, Allen C.D. Scott, II, purchased the property from Mr. Morese. When Mr. Scott purchased the property from Mr. Morese, the variance was transferred to Mr. Scott. After Mr. Scott purchased the property, he hired an engineer to assist him in securing a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) coastal construction control permit. The permit was finally issued on May 13, 1999. The variance granted Mr. Morese and subsequently transferred to Mr. Scott expired December 18, 1998. Thus, by the time Mr. Scott obtained his DEP permit to put fill on his property in order to construct his septic system, the variance for reduced setbacks from Petitioner's wells had expired. On June 14, 1999, Mr. Scott applied to DOH for a variance to reduce the required setbacks from Petitioner's irrigation and drinking water wells to his proposed septic system. Mr. Scott's variance application requested the exact same setbacks that Mr. Morese had been granted in December 1997. For the same reasons the variance review committee recommended approval of the Morese the committee recommended approval of the Scott variance. Dr. Sharon Heber, Director of Environmental Health, DOH, granted the variance by letter on July 2, 1999. The letter contained the same provisions as Mr. Morese received in December 1997. The evidence demonstrated that the requested variance would not adversely impact anyone's health or degrade ground or surface waters. Moreover, the evidence showed that the variance met all other Department criteria for an onsite sewage disposal system. Don Hallman, professional engineer, testified that the pit casing of Ms. Bobbitt's well provides an additional layer of protection from contamination sources. He further explained that Petitioner's deep well was cased in a consolidated formation which furnished protection from surface and lateral contaminants. Mike Turner testified that he has permitted and/or had experience with two thousand or more wells in his job with the St. Johns Water Management District. He stated unequivocally that Ms. Bobbitt's deep, pit-cased well was in no more danger from contamination from Scott's septic system, 50 feet away, than it is from the 65-foot reduced setback distance to her own septic system. Given these facts, Respondent is entitled to a variance for his proposed septic tank system.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the variance should be granted by the Department of Health and Petitioner's challenge dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 8th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 May Bobbitt 41 Zamora Street St. Augustine, Florida 32095 Allen C. D. Scott, II, Esquire 101 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Langue, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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 Petitioner should be granted a certificate authorizing it to continue operating a water and sewer utility in Flagler County; and Whether Petitioner's application to increase its water and sewer rates to its customers should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Utility The Utility, a subsidiary of ITT Community Development Corporation, owns and operates a central water and sewer system serving Palm Coast Community--a planned development of approximately 40 square miles located in Flagler County. Although the development has less than 3,000 occupied homesites, more than 40,000 homesites are planned. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Water System The water system includes wells, a treatment plant, storage facilities, and distribution mains. There are 13 water supply wells with a flow capability of 3.40 MGD (million gallons per day); present peak flow is 2.00 MGD. The raw water is piped to a central water treatment plant which utilizes a lime- softening process. Present plant peak flows equal the maximum rated capacity: 2.00 MGD. There are two ground storage reservoirs (with a total capacity of 1,300,000 gallons) and two elevated storage tanks (with a total capacity of 850,000 gallons). The water distribution system consists of an extensive network of mains, valves, fire hydrants, and meters used to convey potable water from the treatment plant to customers throughout Palm Coast Community. Although during the test year ending June 28, 1980, the Utility supplied water to an average of 2,191 residential and 80 general service customers, water distribution mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. The total water system, as of June 28, 1980, has been constructed at a cost of $17,486,433. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4.) The Sewer System The sewer system includes a collection system, 57 lift stations, a wastewater treatment plant, and effluent disposal facilities. The wastewater plant utilizes an extended aeration process and has a rated hydraulic capacity of 600,000 gallons per day. Effluent is disposed of by spray irrigation on a 65-acre disposal field. Although during the test year, the Utility supplied sewer service to an average of 1,502 residential and 39 general service customers, sewage collection mains have been constructed to 22,988 building sites. As of June 28, 1980, the sewer system has been constructed at a cost of $24,850,962. (Testimony of Potter; P-2, R-4). The Rate Increase Application By its application, the Utility seeks authorization to increase water operating revenues by $170,460 and sewer operating revenues by $106,924. If granted, annual gross water revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $422,211 and gross sewer revenues would increase (by approximately 40 percent) to $267,194. (Testimony of Deterding; 5-3 P-4, R-2.) As grounds, the Utility contends that during the test year ending June 28, 1980, it suffered an operating loss of $225,430 in its water operations, and a loss of $109,909 in its sewer operations; that it is entitled to a 13.08 percent rate of return on its rate base. (Application for Rate Increase, dated November 3, 1980). II. The Elements of Rate Making In issuing a certificate and setting rates, the Commission must determine: the rate base 2/ ; (2) the cost of providing the utility service, including debt interest, working capital, maintenance, depreciation, tax, and operating expenses; (3) a fair return on the rate base; and (4) the quality of service provided. At hearing, the Utility presented evidence on each of these rate-making elements. For the most part, the Commission did not oppose the Utility's evidence; those matters which were disputed are separately addressed below. Rate Base Rate base represents the Utility's property which provides the services for which rates are charged. There are three issues involving the establishment of rate base: (1) average or year-end rate base. (2) inclusion of cost of a 750,000 gallon water storage tank; and (3) deferral of depreciation on non-used- and-useful plant. Average or Year-End Rate Base At hearing, the Utility asserted that it had experienced extraordinary growth, justifying the utilization of year-end rate base. The Commission disputed this claim of extraordinary growth, and urged the use of a 13-month average. On June 22, 1981, the Utility filed a post-hearing "Notice of Change in the Position of the Applicant," by which it receded from its previous position and agreed that, for purposes of this proceeding, an average rate base should be used. The issue is, therefore, moot and utilization of a 13-month average rate base is accepted. However, the Utility continues to assert that a year-end rate base should be established for "purposes of certification." 3/ Such assertion is rejected as inconsistent with its June 22, 1981, acceptance of average rate base: the acceptance applied to this "proceeding," 4/ and was not limited to rate-making purposes. Moreover, the Utility has not shown why a second rate base, based on year-end figures, should be established. Year-end rate base constitutes a deviation from the standard and preferable method of using a 13-month average; it may only be used under circumstances of unusual or extraordinary growth-- circumstances which the Utility no longer claims exist. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Deferral of Depreciation and Amortization The Utility requests authority to defer depreciating non-used-and-useful plant and amortizing contributions-in-aid-of-construction ("CIAC") until such time as the plant or contributions become used and useful. The effect would be to preserve the original cost of the property so it may eventually be recovered from future customers benefitting from its use; because original cost would not have been reduced, rate base would be higher for those future customers. The Commission opposes the requested deferral. Both parties cite language in a previous Commission order (Order No. 7455, Docket No. 760034, In Re: Petition of North Orlando Water and Sewer Corporation) as evidence of existing Commission non-rule policy on deferral of depreciation expense on non-used-and-useful property. The Commission language in that order lends support to the opposing arguments of each party. Even if the policy was stated unequivocally it could not--without record support--establish Commission policy for purposes of this rate proceeding. The Utility's request is rejected because record evidence in this proceeding. The Utility executed a Revenue Agreement with ITT Community Development Corporation on June 27, 1980. Under that agreement, Community Development Corporation, the developer of Palm Coast Community, agreed to pay the Utility--through 1990--an amount sufficient to allow recovery of costs, including depreciation, attributable to utility property installed for unimproved lots. Such utility property is the same non-used-and-useful property for which the utility now seeks to defer depreciation and amortization. Since this revenue agreement allows the Utility to recover from the developer depreciation expenses attributable to non-used-and-useful property, deferral of depreciation--to allow recovery from future customers--is unnecessary. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; R2) 5/ Inclusion of Cost of Water Storage Tank The Utility proposes to include in rate base the use-and-useful portion of a 0.75 million gallon elevated storage tank. It was not completed and placed in service until after the test year. Neither was its construction explicitly ordered by government order. However, from an engineering standpoint, it was needed during this test period to maintain minimum water pressure during peak- flow periods and provide adequate flows for fire protection purposes. It now functions as an integral component of the Utility's water system. At hearing, the Commission's accountant testified that 100 percent of the cost of the water storage tank should be removed from the plant-in-service component of rate base because it was not in service during the test year. The parties agreed to his submittal of a post-hearing accounting exhibit showing adjustments resulting from his testimony. However, in his late-filed exhibit (R-2), the accountant took a position which contradicted his testimony at hearing: In this case we feel that consideration of this after test year plant must be given. The utility's used and useful portion of the other storage facilities will increase substantially. In addition this item appears to be an integral component of the plant which was operating during the test year and at present. (R-2.) (Emphasis supplied.) He included proposed schedules which: (1) include the tank as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; (2) include the total cost of the tank including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion in calculating average rate base; and (3) show the effect of these adjustments in construction work in progress (CWIP) so that they can be easily identified and not confused with plant that was, in fact, in service by the end of the test year. Notwithstanding this significant change in its accountant's testimony, the Commission continues to advocate 6/ the accountant's earlier position at hearing--one which he has now abandoned. Thus, the Commission argues that: [T]he only correct position in calculating an average rate base is to exclude the after test year plant addition and adjust the used and useful percentage. . .as he [its accountant] originally proposed at the hearing. (Commission's Recommended Order, p. 5) This contention his rejected as inconsistent with the Commission's own accounting and engineering evidence. 7/ It also overlooks the undisputed fact that the storage tank is now operating as an essential component of the water system, and that it will continue to be used during the period in which the new rates will be in effect. The Commission's alternative treatment--as proposed by its accountant's post-hearing exhibit (R-2), is accepted as persuasive. The cost of the storage tank is thus included as CWIP, and is calculated as if placed in service during the last month of the test year; the total cost of the tank, including interest capitalized net of the non-used-and-useful portion, is utilized (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding, Chastain; R-1.) The sewer system rate base proposed by the Utility is not disputed by the Commission and is accepted. The resulting average rate bases for the water and sewer systems are $2,736,279 and $1,044,165, respectively. They are depicted below. WATER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $12,397,249 Plant Held for Future Use (8,848,497) Construction Work in Progress 39,097 Accumulated Depreciation (216,405) Contribution-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (687,787) Working Capital Allowance 35,837 Materials and Supplies 7,785 Income Tax Lag -0- RATE BASE $ 2,736,279 SEWER RATE BASE (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Utility Plant in Service $18,461,055 Plant Held for Future Use (15,787,481) Construction Work in Progress -0- Accumulated Depreciation (109,729) Contributions-in-Aid-of-Construction (Net of Amortization) (1,551,865) Working Capital Allowance 27,186 Materials and Supplies 4,999 Income Tax tag -0- RATE BASE $ 1,044,145 (Late-filed Exhibit, R-2.) B. Operating Income The parties agree that, during the test year, the Utility had a $130,243 operating loss from its water operations, and a sewer operations. The operating statements are $95,281 operating loss from it depicted below: WATER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $251,751 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 286,694 Depreciation 75,314 Amortization 954 Taxes Other Than Income 19,032 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $381,994 s Operating Income (Loss) $(130,243) SEWER OPERATING STATEMENT (Test Year Ended 6-28-80) Operating Revenues (Present Rates) $160,270 Operating Revenue Deductions Operation 217,487 Depreciation 21,872 Amortization 767 Taxes Other Than Income 15,425 Income Taxes -0- TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $255,551 Operating Income (Loss) $(95,281) Since during the test year, the Utility operated its water and sewer systems at a loss; it received a negative rate of return on its rate base. (Testimony of Gregg, Deterding; Late-Filed Exhibit R-2, P-3, P-4.) Cost of Capital and Fair Rate of Return The only issue between the parties concerning cost of capital to the Utility is whether deferred taxes should be included in its capital structure. At the end of the test year, the Utility's books showed no deferred taxes; however, during the later half of 1980, it changed its accounting treatment for deferred taxes. Applying its new method, deferred taxes at the end of the test year would be $3,137,000--assuming deferred depreciation on non-used-and-useful property is disallowed. The Utility failed to establish the impropriety of applying an accounting method which it will continue to follow in the foreseeable future; it is therefore concluded that the deferred taxes should be calculated as $3,137,000, at zero cost. 8/ The resulting overall cost of capital is 12.29 percent. A reasonable rate of return falls within a range of 11.87 percent to 12.72 percent. It is depicted below: COST OF CAPITAL Weighted Component Common Stock Equity Amount $22,224,497 Weight 42.23 Cost 15.0 percent Cost 6.33 Long Term Debt 27,163,003 51.62 11.5 5.94 Customer Deposits 99,653 .19 8.0 .02 Deferred Taxes 3,137,000 5.96 -0- -0- $52,624,153 100.00 12.29 (Testimony of Kelly, Potter; R-5.) proposed Revenue The Utility seeks increased water revenues of $170,460 and increased sewer revenues of $106,924. Although the parties agree on a base facility rate design, 9/ the Commission disputes proposed charges for fire hydrants and irrigation meters. 10/ Fire Hydrant Charges The Utility presently collects, under contract, a fire hydrant charge of $70 per year per hydrant from two fire districts which serve the area. This method is favored by customers and the fire districts; because the fire districts raise their funds through tax assessments, the customers payments are tax deductable. The Commission argues that the $70 charges do not cover all of the Utility's fire protection costs and that such costs should be recovered through regular service rates. While the $70 charge was shown to be insufficient to cover fire service costs, no reason was provided why the additional funds could not be recovered by increasing charges to the fire districts. This method of paying for fire protection costs is advantageous to the customers. It is likely that the fire service districts would cooperate with the Utility in negotiating fire service charges which are adequate to cover the costs of the service provided. Consequently, it is concluded that the present method of collecting fire service charges should be retained, although the charges should be increased sufficiently to cover the attendant costs to the Utility. (Testimony of Fabelo, Public Witnesses.) Irrigation Meter Charges The Utility proposes a $2.00 base facility charge for irrigation meters, with a $4.50 charge for regular service. The Commission prefers an irrigation meter base facility charge equal to one-half of the base charge of a corresponding regular service meter, assuming both meters are on the same tap to the water main. Since the demand for water that both meters can cumulatively place on the water system is 1.5 times that placed by a regular service meter, the Commission's position is persuasive. 11/ The parties also disputed the base facility customer accounting charges for irrigation meters--the Utility contending that the additional meters impose little additional costs and the Commission asserting that customer accounting charges should be given full weight. The Utility's position is accepted as persuasive. The two meters are usually close together and easily read. Both services are included on one account and one monthly bill covers both. Thus, while the irrigation meter imposes a slight additional accounting cost, it is minimal when compared to the cost imposed by a separate regular service meter. (Testimony of Gregg, Fabelo.) Rate of Return Allowed by Proposed Revenue Adding the requested water revenue increase of $165,633 to the adjusted test-year water operating revenues of $251,751 results in total recommended operating revenues of $417,384. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $381,994 leaves a net operating income of $35,390--a 1.29 percent return on a water rate base of $2,736,279. Adding the requested sewer revenue increase of $111,751 to the adjusted test-year sewer operating revenues of $160,270 results in total recommended operating revenues of $272,021. Subtracting test-year operating expenses of $255,551 leaves a net operating income of $16,470--a 1.58 percent return on a sewer rate base of $1,044,165. (Testimony of Deterding; R-2) Quality of Service The quality of the water furnished the Utility's customers depends on their location. Customers residing in the area most heavily populated--north of Highway 100--receive satisfactory water service. Their water is treated by the Utility's central lime-softening plant. In contrast, the customers residing in the Seminole Woods area have not received water of comparable quality. Seminole Woods lies in the south extremity of the service area; it consists of approximately eight single-family residences and one duplex. Due to the remote location and slow rate of growth of Seminole Woods, the Utility has not found it practical to interconnect with the central lime-softening plant or build a separate lime-softening plant to serve the area. Instead, the Utility pumps raw water from a nearby well to a temporary facility where it is chlorinated and then conveyed to the residences where it is treated by separate zeolite or "Culligan" water-softening devices. These devices are furnished customers by the Utility without additional charge. The residents of Seminole Woods have frequently received water with excessive chlorine or hydrogen sulfide. The Utility's efforts to monitor the chlorine levels and regularly flush the system have not solved the problems. Seminole Woods customers have repeatedly complained about the quality of their water--its excessive chlorine taste, offensive odor (similar to the smell of rotten eggs), and high sodium content. The water quality is so poor that at least three of the residents have found it undrinkable; they buy bottled water at an additional cost of approximately $20 per month. The Utility's current solution to the problem is to extend mains from the northern area to Seminole Woods. The lines are now under construction and completion is expected "within a year or so." (Tr. 253.) With the exception of the Seminole Woods area, the quality of sewer and water service provided by the Utility is acceptable and has rarely been the subject of complaints. Occasional problems of power outages have been corrected. Neither the water nor the sewer system has been or is now under any governmental citation for non-sewage or water treatment standards. Upon completion of the connecting water mains, it is likely that the residents of Seminole Woods will receive water equal in quality to that enjoyed by other residents of Palm Coast Community. (Testimony of Thomas, Sannartano, Creolino, Potter, Likins.) III. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity The Utility has filed with the Commission a map of its existing utility systems, a description of the area served, and all information requested by the Commission concerning its rates and charges. Neither the Commission nor the public objected to the granting of a certificate authorizing it to continue providing water and sewer services in the affected area. (Testimony of Chastain, Members of the Public; Prehearing Statement.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Utility be granted a certificate to continue operating its water and sewer systems in the areas described, and That it be authorized to file tariffs, consistent with the provisions of this Recommended Order, designed to generate annual gross water revenues of $417,384 and annual gross sewer revenues of $272,021. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of creating, keeping, or maintaining a nuisance injurious to health in violation of Section 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Citation for Violation, dated August 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, the successor agency to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and correcting sanitary nuisances in this state. The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, now known as Hyacinth D. Wallace, has owned a private residence and kennels located at 2323 Tuscawilla Road, Winter Springs, Florida, from 1996 to the present. On or about June 19, 1996, the Seminole County Public Health Unit received a complaint of a possible sanitary nuisance existing on the Respondent’s property. On June 21, 1996, an inspection of Respondent’s property revealed that the property contained a large home with a septic tank and drain field in the front yard and another in the back yard. A kennel for small animals and an apartment was also located in the rear of the property. The septic tank and drain field in the rear of the property was located in a low spot which was subject to the accumulation of surface water runoff from the kennel and during periods of above-average rainfall. Observation revealed standing water in the back yard. The water showed discoloration and had a pungent odor. However, no solid waste was visible. Subsequent tests for sewage contamination was inconclusive. This observation indicated the drain field had failed. Respondent was given a Sanitary Nuisance form letter which recommended that the septic tank be pumped, the ground disinfected and the drainfield be repaired within ten days. Respondent contacted two septic tank companies in late June and received estimates on pumping the septic tank and on the repair and improvement of the septic system. Respondent retained one of the companies to pump the septic tank. The septic tank company was unable to complete the job prior to Petitioner’s reinspection on July 2, 1997, because of above normal rainfall and the inability to get its truck into the Respondent’s back yard. Petitioner reinspected Respondent’s property on July 2, 1997 and observed the same conditions as was observed on June 21, 1997. A three day extension was granted to Respondent, in order for the tank to be pumped. On July 3, 1997, Orlando Septic Tank Service, Inc. pumped the septic tank and disinfected the area. It also advised Respondent that the drainfield had failed and would need to be replaced. On July 8, 1997, Respondent inspected the area again and observed the same conditions as on the prior inspections. An Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance and a Notice of Intended Action was issued by Respondent on July 11, 1997. It was served on Respondent, by posting and by certified mail, on July 12, 1997. Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance within 7 days of the notice or an administrative fine would be imposed. Respondent began to disinfect the area with lime on a daily basis, until the drainfield was repaired. The low area with the standing water was bordered off with visible construction type ribbon and visitors coming to the premises were advised to stay clear of the area. Respondent authorized Orlando Septic Tank Service to submit a permit application to replace the drainfield in accordance with the specifications approved by the Petitioner. The application was submitted on July 17, 1996. The permit was issued on July 24, 1996. On July 25, 1997, Respondent received a proposal from Orlando Septic Service to install an elevated drainfield on the site for the sum of $4,288.50. Respondent was not able to financially afford to authorize this work without obtaining financing for the project. When financing was obtained, Respondent accepted the proposal and then authorized the work on August 8, 1996. Due to other obligations, Orlando Septic was not able to give a proposed starting date for the project until August 26, 1996. On August 13, 1996, Petitioner inspected the Respondent’s property again and observed the same conditions as on previous inspections. Petitioner was informed of the projected starting date for repair of the drainfield, however, a Citation for Violation was issued on August 16, 1996 calling for corrective actions to abate the condition by 4:00 p.m. August 19, 1996. On August 27, 1996, the septic tank was pumped again. Orlando Septic Service was scheduled to begin work on the repair of the drainfield on August 26, 1996. On that same date, the company called Respondent and informed her that they were delayed on another job and could not begin repair of Respondent’s drainfield until sometime in September. Respondent immediately called another company and gave them the contract. The repair was completed on September 10, 1996. The evidence was insufficient to establish that a sanitary nuisance existed on Respondent’s property on August 16, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, be found not guilty of violations Sections 386.041(b), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Intended Action be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia Nieves Burton, Esquire Department of Health 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael D. Jones, Esquire Atrium II Building 301 West State Road 434, Suite 317 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Catherine H. Berry Legal Office Duval County Health Department 515 West 6th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4397 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Franklin T. and Barbara Snow acquired the NE corner of the S-1/2 of the SE-1/4 of Government Lot 3 in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 16 East near Ozello in Citrus County. This property was acquired by Petitioner at a public sale by the U.S. Government who had acquired the property in a tax delinquency proceeding. Petitioner purchased the property to use as a homesite for a doublewide prefabricated home he desired to place on the property. Before a building permit will be issued by Citrus County, Petitioner is required to have access to water and to sewage disposal facilities. No central sewage treatment facility serves this area and other developed lots in the vicinity use septic tanks. Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit was denied by the Citrus County Health Department because there was an insufficient buffer zone between the proposed drain field and surface water. Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, provides onsite sewage disposal systems shall be placed no closer than 75 feet from surface waters. Because the lot owned .by Petitioner was platted prior to 1972, the minimum setback for this property is 50 feet from surface waters. Petitioner appealed to the Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal, DHRS, for a waiver from this setback requirement. By letter dated March 9, 1984, Petitioner was advised that his request for variance was denied. Following discussions with Citrus County Health Department officials who issue septic tank permits, on May 11, 1984, Petitioner applied to DER for a dredge and fill permit to place some 750 cubic yards of fill into a wetland area on Petitioner's property to provide a sufficient buffer or setback zone for a proposed septic tank and drain field installation. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of a marsh approximately 1,200 feet from the open waters but within the landward extent of the St. Martins River. The marsh area consists principally of black rush and salt grass and is interlaced with small tidal creeks which flow into the two adjacent canals or into St. Martins River. Petitioner's property contains an upland parcel approximately 50 feet in width between existing canals which resulted from dredging these canals. The "upland" configuration was larger at one time than its present configuration, but was reduced to its present size through enforcement action by environmental agencies. The area which Petitioner seeks to fill had fill removed therefrom in these enforcement proceedings. The waters surrounding and including the project site are classified as Class III waters. Soil borings taken at the site shows the salt marsh underlain by 8 to 12 inches of sand, which overlays an organic mat of decaying anerobic black rush. Beneath this organic layer is limerock. Petitioner's application for a permit to fill this property was denied by Respondent because of the proposed septic tank installation. Respondent suggested chemical sewage disposal systems could be used at this site; however, the only witness qualifying as an expert in waste disposal facilities is familiar with other waste disposal systems and testified none of those systems can be used at this site. Before a building permit will be granted, household water supply is required and treatment of this water after use for bathing, washing, etc., will still be necessary and this treatment cannot be accomplished in a chemical system. Septic tank systems are regulated by DHRS and applications therefor are approved by DHRS specialists at the county health department level. The property here involved is within the 10-year flood plain and in order to obtain septic tank approval the site must be elevated above that plain. Here, that is 4.9 feet above sea level. The site is 3.5 feet above sea level. The bottom of the drain field is required to be 24 inches above the water table. If the fill permit is granted and approximately three feet of fill is placed over the 4,500 square feet, this will raise the property sufficiently so it will not be subject to tidal action and will provide a buffer zone sufficient to allow Citrus County to issue a septic tank permit. One objection raised by DER is that filling the area over existing vegetation will create another organic mat of decaying vegetation which will leach laterally into adjacent surface waters where it will contribute nutrients and exert an oxygen demand on the water column. Citrus County Health Department has authority to require the existing detritius be removed before new fill is applied and to require the perimeter of the fill area to be constructed with clayey soils to inhibit leachate escaping from the site. Removal of salt grass would precede removal of the decaying vegetation under the 8 to 12 inches of sand and leave nothing to add to the nutrient level of adjacent surface waters or impose an oxygen demand on the water column. The black rush and salt grass which presently dominate the proposed fill site perform a significant water quality function in trapping sediments, filtering runoff and assimilating nutrients. The presence of adjacent canals increases the value of this function. The proposed fill site also functions as a productive habitat for numerous aquatic species which comprise a portion of the estuarine food chain and ecosystem. More than a dozen aquatic organisms were turned up by a singe scoop of a dip net in an area nearly in the center of the proposed fill site. Leaving the site in its present condition creates a public benefit to the State. Adding fill to the area as requested will allow the site to comply with the regulations for septic tank installation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue a federal dredge and fill permit to Petitioner if this application is granted. Therefore, the granting of this application for a dredge and fill permit will allow Petitioner to use the property he purchased for a home site. Respondent called one witness who qualified as an expert in the field of public health microbiology. This witness testified that studies have shown dead end canals and septic tank leachate to be significant contributors to high fecal coliform densities in adjacent waters. This witness opined that the statutory buffer zone is inadequate to prevent violations of Class III water standards in adjacent surface waters from such sources. Proposed finding No. 16, while not technically incorrect, is misleading. Bradley did represent that a buffer zone whose perimeter is composed of clay will keep leachate from escaping the site; that if a 50-foot setback could be maintained from surface waters, the county would grant the permit; and he believed the fill permit should be granted.
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted a variance from Rule 64E-6.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 381.0065(4)(h)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Tony and Alma Moreno are owners of the building and premises located at 8250 Scenic Highway, Pensacola. They own the real property at that location all the way to road frontage right-of-way at Scenic Highway. The building had been in continuous existence in the same location for twenty or more years before Petitioner became connected with it. During that period of time, except for short hiatuses, either the Morenos or their lessees operated it as a licensed bar, most often under the name, "The Lighthouse Tavern." Sewage lines exist in the right-of-way at Scenic Highway, within 400 feet of the premises. The tavern is equipped with a septic tank. There has never been any history of septic problems on the tavern premises. The Lighthouse Tavern has always been a neighborhood bar of limited success. Martin MacAndrews has been putting amusement games in the tavern since 1978. He testified that during those twenty-two years, the average number of patrons has been eight to 14. Jim McDaniel has sold paper products to successive lessees since the 1970's. He has seen an average of 10 patrons during the day and up to 20 patrons at night. Charles Barcia, a more recent patron, has observed a maximum of nine patrons in the tavern. Denise Powell (nee´ Williams) leased the premises from August 7, 1998, until approximately September 28, 1998, during which time she operated the Lighthouse Tavern. She had approximately ten customers per day, used plastic barware, and had no septic problems. During the month or so she operated the tavern, she did not have the septic tank pumped. Ms. Powell's lease with the Morenos was not due to expire until July 31, 1999. However, on or about September 28, 1998, Hurricane Georges damaged the Lighthouse Tavern and wreaked destruction on Pensacola and much of the Florida Panhandle. The area was declared both a state and federal "disaster area." Ms. Powell immediately notified the Morenos, and they cancelled the lease by mutual agreement, because the premises were uninhabitable due to substantial water damage. Ms. Powell testified that but for Hurricane Georges, she would have continuously operated the Lighthouse Tavern under the terms of her lease from the Morenos. As it was, she abandoned the lease and the property. The Morenos made no repairs to the building. No commercial activity, as a tavern or otherwise, occurred on the subject property from September 28, 1998, through May 1, 2000, approximately a year-and-a-half. City water service to the property was terminated from October 12, 1998 until April 7, 2000. On April 5, 2000, Petitioner, a widowed mother, applied to Escambia County for an occupational license to run a tavern at that location. On or about April 7, 2000, Petitioner negotiated a new lease with the Morenos. It involved rate and terms favorable to Petitioner in exchange for her substantial investment (approximately $35,000, as of the date of hearing) in renovating the Lighthouse Tavern. Among other renovations to the property, Petitioner has replaced the tavern's back wall and outside deck, added two pool tables, coolers, two complete bathrooms, a three compartment sink, and a handwash sink. Very few of the fixtures, etc. are removable, let alone subject to resale. A five-year lease, Exhibit P-2, was executed on May 1, 2000. It limits Petitioner's use of the property to use as a tavern, so she cannot get her renovation money back by converting to another business. Paragraph 21 of the lease, purporting to be a lease/purchase option, has not been filled- out, so Petitioner's option to purchase the property is potentially unenforceable. Current Florida Administrative Code rules require septic tanks to have a minimum capacity of 1050 gallons, a filter, and a baffle. A baffle is a device to keep water and waste from going into the drainfields. On May 15, 2000, Ensley Septic Tank Service, operated by Agnes and Joe Nelson, pumped, inspected, and certified the existing septic tank as structurally sound. However, the existing septic tank is twenty years old and provides only 750 gallons. It is not baffled and does not have a filter. Its two drainfields are 75 feet and 69 feet, respectively, from the waterfront, whereas by Escambia County Ordinance, the current setback requirement is 100 feet. On May 25, 2000, the Department denied Petitioner a permit to utilize the existing septic tank, based on the contents of her application, which stated that the tavern occupancy would be 75 seats. Departmental analysis showed that 75 patrons would result in 1,000 gallons per day usage. The existing septic tank does not have that capacity. Before the execution of the lease, Petitioner made no inquiries of Respondent Agency. Likewise, no one told her before the execution of the lease that she would not be able to utilize the existing septic tank or use the premises for a tavern. Rather, Petitioner relied on her own interpretation of an Escambia County Ordinance providing additional time to meet County regulations for reopening a business (or nonconforming use) after closing the business due to Acts of God, and on the fact that Denise Powell's lease, by its terms, did not expire until July 31, 1999. When she was denied a permit to use the existing system, Petitioner applied for a variance for 75 patrons. Petitioner also filed a second application for variance and requested 24 patron occupancy. Petitioner went before the Department's Variance Review Board, which recommended granting the variance with the provisos offered by Petitioner. However, on July 18, 2000, the Department denied the requested variance, stating that the information provided by Petitioner failed to show that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage or that the discharge from the septic tank will not significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The Department offered to permit the tavern to operate either with a connection to the existing sewer system or with a septic tank that meets the current requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. At hearing, Petitioner established that the tavern's water bills from 1996 to 1998 show a use of only 430 to 588 gallons of water per month. This amount reflects the low number of 10-20 patrons per day during that period of time (See Finding of Fact 4), but it also is only approximately three- quarters of the capacity of the existing septic tank. At hearing, Petitioner offered the following cumulative provisos to reduce water flow to the system: limit tavern hours to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (15 hours) daily; use plastic or paper cups; not serve food or mixed drinks; restrict beverages to beer and wine; and limit occupancy to 24 patrons. She offered to pump the existing septic tank more frequently and provide "port-a-potties," as needed. Petitioner anticipates using 24 seats inside, plus picnic tables on the deck. She offered to eliminate the outside seating. The deck constitutes one-quarter of the 900 square feet of the establishment. She will upgrade the septic system as her income from operating the tavern recoups her investment. She will close-up and terminate her lease if she cannot bring the premises "up to Code," that is, to meet the current Florida Administrative Code requirements for septic tanks and/or sewer connections, in one year's time. She has no objection to such provisos being attached to a variance, if one is granted. At hearing, certified septic tank engineers, Agnes Nelson and Joe Nelson, testified that the existing 750-gallon septic tank should handle 24 patrons and the water use would be further limited by using plastic or paper drink containers. In Mr. Nelson's opinion, since he found no salt water from the Bay or water table inversion in the tank when he inspected it, and since the drainfield slopes away from the building, the only way salt water would enter the existing septic tank is if it got above ground. Agnes Nelson conceded that high tide could fill the tank up. If, for any reason, the drainfields were not working, then the current septic tank would not work. However, because the building is between the beach and the drainfields; because, in her opinion, 24 patrons probably could not fit inside the building; and because there was so little solid waste in the tank when it was pumped, Ms. Nelson doubted that the tide and the drainfields would create a problem, even in ordinary rainy weather. Unfortunately, in rendering her opinion, Ms. Nelson did not consider the seating capacity of the tavern's deck or the effect on the surface waters of Escambia Bay of operating the tavern with the existing system. As of the date of hearing, the Morenos were in agreement with all of Petitioner's efforts to obtain a variance. They also will allow her to bring the premises "up to Code," if she can. The Department's current opposition to granting a variance with the provisos offered by Petitioner is based in part on immaterial disputes between the parties over who signed the original application for variance and who filled in the number of seats as 75. The Department also is mistrustful of Petitioner because her second variance application stated the building constituted 1,200 square feet. Because the Department and Petitioner now agree that the premises comprise 900 square feet, the error in the second application is also irrelevant. The Department's current opposition to granting the variance with the foregoing provisos volunteered by Petitioner is at least in part due to the on-site audit, wherein Departmental staff determined that the premises, including the outside deck, actually could accommodate 60-75 living, but not necessarily seated, patrons. The Department sees this as an impediment to occupancy being limited to 24 patrons, in practice. Human nature is such that if a bar has a large, outside deck in a tropical climate, it will probably have more patrons then those sitting in the 24 "seats" provided. While this concern might be speculative in other realms, in dealing with possible contaminants to groundwater or to the surface waters of Escambia Bay, it is a legitimate, if uncodified, concern. Joseph Scott Hale, Environmental Health Supervisor I, made the following suggestions which do not require a variance. Petitioner could connect her premises to the existing sewer at the 75-person occupancy limit; or could install a septic tank or tanks and drainfield(s) in accordance with Departmental rules for a 47-person occupancy limit; or could install a much more modest tank and drainfield system for a 24-person occupancy limit. Petitioner has received written bids to accomplish such alternatives in the following ranges. (1) Installation of the necessary plumbing and pumps to connect to an accessible sewer line is available at a cost of $27,628 to $28,450, although these costs could be inflated to more than $40,000 by adding a grinder station and by charges from CSX railroad for access across its right-of-way to the existing sewer lines; and (2) Installation of one or more septic tanks and drainfield systems in accordance with current rules and in a size for an occupancy capacity of 47 is available for a price ranging from $28,032 to $29,465. Neither of these options is currently feasible for Petitioner, because she has spent her savings on the completed renovations and has only $1,000 +/-, on deposit at this time. She has no current income. Without a contract to purchase the tavern property, she does not believe she can obtain financing. She is not eligible for an upgrade grant from the State because the tavern is commercial property. Petitioner feels that it would be necessary for her to run the tavern at a profit for a year at a minimum capacity of 24 seats in order to be able to pay for either of the foregoing possibilities. She cannot get an alcoholic beverage license without the variance. Petitioner is satisfied that if she cannot make a go of the tavern within one year, she can rescind the lease. The Morenos were silent on this issue. It is not necessary to interpret the lease on this score in order to resolve this case. Respondent construes part of Mr. and Mrs. Nelson's testimony as providing a third, cost-effective, and reasonable alternative for Petitioner in the form of a septic tank and drainfield which could be installed according to current Code with an occupancy capacity of 24 patrons at an approximate cost of $3,600 to $4,000. This oral estimate was testified to by Mrs. Nelson, who, although a certified septic tank inspector, does not actually do installing of septic tanks. She conceded that dollar figure was purely a guess and based on one elevated tank of 1050 gallons with a baffle. Mr. Nelson, who does the actual installing, estimated that more than one tank, a mount system, and a pump or two might be necessary, at additional cost. His thinking is in line with the components of the other written estimates Petitioner has received. Accordingly, it is found that the estimate that Ensley Septic Tank Service can bring the existing system up to Code at a cost of $3,600 to $4,000 to Petitioner is speculative and not a reasonable alternative. As is common, expert opinions were mixed on the danger, if any, to the groundwater and surface waters which would be occasioned by Petitioner operating the tavern under her foregoing proposed provisos without upgrading the current septic system. Petitioner's expert in civil engineering and degradation of groundwater did soil borings on the premises and hit no groundwater at 15 inches, even after two weeks of significant rain. However, his experience with soil analysis from "mottling" was limited, and accordingly, his opinion that water in the ground will never or rarely rise above 15 inches, so as to endanger groundwater or surface waters was not persuasive. Instead, I accept the greater weight of the evidence as a whole in order to make the following findings of fact. The top of the drainfields are located 12 to 22 inches below grade and occupy a one foot area, 24-34 inches below grade. The seasonal high water table is 15 inches below grade. The drainfields operate within the groundwater table. Current rules require drainfields to have a separation from the bottom of the drainfield to the top of the seasonal high water table so as to provide space for aerobic biological action. When a drainfield operates within the water table, no opportunity exists for aerobic biological action. Anaerobic biological action is not effective in killing viruses and other pathogens. Viruses can travel in soil from a drainfield to surface water at a rate of 100 feet in eight hours. Mr. Hale, (see Finding of Fact 30), who was accepted as an expert in groundwater table determination, has an impressive list of credentials, and among other qualifications, is State-certified in OSTDSs. He has personally witnessed water rising to the level of the leechfield in this location. Mr. Hale also took borings, but not in the leechfield. Even though standing water was not found until 32 inches below grade, the soil was saturated at 15 inches, which is the seasonal high water table and mean high water mark of Escambia Bay at Petitioner's waterfront. The usual groundwater high water table in this location is 24 inches below natural grade, and the temporary water table rises and falls, as affected by Escambia Bay tides and by rainfall. Another concern is that the leechfields average only 15 inches below grade, and soil "capillary action" or water "wicking" through the soil can result in contamination of the groundwater if they become saturated. The close proximity of the property to Escambia Bay presents the potential for pollution of surface waters. Mr. Hale reported that the tavern location is not subject to frequent flooding. However, it can, and probably will, flood, as before, during a hurricane. Mr. Hale testified further that but for the length of the cessation of business as a result of the hurricane (more than one year), the tavern could have continued to operate with eight seats and no danger to the groundwater. In his opinion, the existing system, unaltered, can handle waste disposal for only eight patrons. A 47-seat occupancy is the maximum allowable for a 1,000 gallon flow. Even though 24 seats would not be expected to exceed 1,000 gallons a day, 24 seats would not be accommodated by the existing system's 750 gallon tank, drainfields, leechfields, and insufficient set back footage. Mr. Hale reluctantly conceded that 22 seats might be "feasible," with all proposed provisos in place, plus the substitution of low flow toilets, but that solution would not be his best recommendation nor acceptable to the Department. According to Dr. Malcomb Shields, who was accepted as an expert microbiologist in the field of migration of pollutants from drainfields to surface waters, Escambia Bay is already above its threshold in dangerous nutrients. Dr. Shields further opined, with impressive scientific detail, that narrowing the zone in the drainfield, as on the Lighthouse Tavern property, makes the drainfields susceptible to more pathogens. In his opinion, the offered provisos would have absolutely no effect on the existing septic tank and system efficiency except to limit water and waste into the septic tank itself. Dr. Shields conceded that a variance granted upon the terms requested would not, by itself, cause significant degradation of water quality. However, he felt that perpetual use of the variance, even with the foregoing provisos, would, combined with all other factors present, contribute to surface water degradation, which is the test under the rule. Dr. Shields did not feel that a variance absolutely limited to one year's duration would have the same effect.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order which: Permits Petitioner to operate her tavern either with a connection to the existing sewer system or with installation of a septic tank and drainfield system in accordance with the current Florida Administrative Code rules for an occupancy capacity of 24 patrons; and alternatively Grants Petitioner a 12-month variance to utilize the existing tank and drainfield system upon the following terms: Petitioner shall obtain and maintain an annual OSTDS operating permit allowing inspection at will by the Department; Petitioner shall maintain an annual contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service the existing OSTDS at least once per month, or more frequently as necessary; Upon notification by the septic tank contractor of any problem with the OSTDS, Petitioner shall provide port-a- potties sufficient for 22 patrons; During the 12 months the variance is in place, Petitioner shall provide a port-a-potty on any occasion of rain over eight hours' duration. Petitioner shall not open for business until low- flow toilets are substituted; Petitioner shall operate the premises as a tavern for no more than 12 months, during which 12 months Petitioner shall take all necessary steps to bring the system up to Code or to connect to the sewer line; During the 12 months the variance is in place, Petitioner shall limit hours of operation to 15 hours daily; eliminate all deck seating; provide no more than 22 seats inside; use only paper or plastic ware; serve no food or mixed drinks; and actively limit occupancy to 22 patrons at any one time; and At the end of the 12 months, the system shall be in compliance or the tavern shall be closed and remain closed until compliance is achieved. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven E. Melei, Esquire 3603 Mobile Highway Pensacola, Florida 32505 Rodney Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Theodore M. Henderson, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner created a sanitary nuisance in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E- 6.022(1)(l) and 64E-6.022(1)(q) and, if so, the proper penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Duval County Health Department (Department), is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to septic tank installations and repairs in Florida, pursuant to Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Sub-Chapter 64E-6. Mr. Hoag is registered as a Septic Tank Contractor pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.019. He was issued registration no. SR0911053. It was necessary to install a new septic tank at residences located at 8817 and 8821 Bellrose Avenue, in Duval County, during March 2004. The owner of the premises, Ben Lewis, contracted with Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., to accomplish this work. A repair application was submitted to the Department on March 8, 2004, and was approved. Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., engaged Mr. Hoag, of Plumbing and Contracting by Hoag, to accomplish the plumbing portion of the operation. Sometime on April 8, 2004, the exact time not being estimated, Mr. Hoag disconnected the stub from the residences that ran to the former septic tank. This was done so that pipes could be run to a new septic tank. He neither connected the line that he disconnected to the new septic tank nor capped the pipe. Mr. Hoag requested the occupants of the residences to refrain from using the sanitary facilities within the residences until he was able to continue his work on April 9, 2004. Despite this request, the facilities were used between April 8, 2004, and April 9, 2004. On April 9, 2004, sometime prior to 11:45 in the morning, Colleen Bierbach, an inspector with the Department, entered the premises of 8817 and 8821 Bellrose Avenue and observed household wastewater and human fecal matter on the ground at the terminus of the stub. Pictures were taken that memorialized the nature of the deposits. Inspector Scott Turner, of the Department, issued a citation to Mr. Hoag that indicated that the offense occurred at 11:45 a.m. on April 9, 2004. The citation reflected a violation of Section 386.041(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(l) and (q). With regard to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(l), the citation charged only that he committed, "Gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct which causes no monetary harm to a customer." The citation was accepted by Mr. Hoag on April 15, 2004. Mr. Hoag's failure to either connect the line to the new septic tank or to cap the outflow line, caused an unsanitary and unsafe condition to exist at 8817 and 8821 Bellrose Avenue, Duval County, on April 9, 2004. No evidence was adduced as to the exact time that the pipe was opened on April 8, 2004, or as to the exact time that the pipe was closed and the area decontaminated on April 9, 2004.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Duval County Health Department, dismiss the citation issued to Mr. Hoag on April 9, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 Robert J. Hoag Plumbing & Contracting by Hoag Post Office Box 7931 Jacksonville, Florida 32238 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. John O. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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. /
The Issue Whether Respondent, Virgil Cardin, d/b/a Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service (Respondent or Cardin), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Administrative Fines and Revocation of Septic Tank Contractor License and Business Authorization, dated December 28, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (SOSTDS). The installation, repair, and/or alteration of any septic tank system fall within the purview of Petitioner's authority. Public health concerns mandate that all septic tank systems be operated according to governing laws and rules. Respondent is a resident of the State of Florida and is registered by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services within the state. Respondent's registration number is SR0890865. Respondent owns and operates Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service located in Lakeland, Florida, and the company is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. The company's authorization number is SE093690. Septic tank contracting services are governed by SOSTDS. The Controversy It is undisputed that a permit must be obtained prior to performing repairs to a septic tank system. In Polk County (where all actions complained of occurred), a septic tank service company is required to apply for a permit before work is performed, obtain an inspection by appropriate authorities before beginning work, and complete all work in accordance with designated standards. A septic tank pump-out does not require a permit. Any work that would involve the exposure of the drain fields and/or the refitting of portions of the septic system would require a permit. The controversy in this case stems from Respondent's failure to obtain a permit before beginning repairs to a septic tank system located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent did not, in advance of starting work at the home, obtain a permit. The Arguments The Digans own a home located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. For several years, the Digans have experienced problems with their septic tank system to the point that waste from the septic system has backed up into their home. Previously, Respondent addressed the Digans' septic tank system problems by pumping the waste from the tank, thereby eliminating pressure on the overwrought system. On or about August 24, 2012, Respondent went to the Digans' home and pumped out the septic tank. A permit for the work done that date was not required. Given the history of the problems with the Digans' system, it became apparent to the owners and Respondent that comprehensive repairs to the system were necessary. As there was no way to predict when another pump-out might be required, it was not surprising that approximately one week later Respondent returned to the Digans' property for additional work. On that date, September 1, 2012, Respondent could not pump out the Digans' tank, because his truck was already full. Instead, Respondent took a backhoe to the Digans' property and began to dig trenches for the drain field. Respondent's employee began to construct a septic drain line header pipe with drain field chamber end plates attached. Respondent exposed the Digans' septic system as if he were going to make repairs to the system. When confronted by two environmental supervisors who observed Respondent's actions, Respondent readily admitted he did not have a permit for the work. At first, Respondent stated that the homeowners could not afford permits. Later, Respondent maintained that the work he performed on September 1, 2012, did not require a permit. Petitioner maintains that Respondent went to the Digans' home on September 1, 2012, to make repairs to the septic tank system without prior inspection or a required permit. The Analysis Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that the Digans' septic tank system needed extensive repairs. Respondent had pumped out the tank several times and should have known that the system was not functioning as intended. Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that repairs to any septic tank system require an inspection and permit. On September 4, 2012, after being caught the prior Saturday on the Digans' property, Respondent applied for a permit for the repairs to the Digans' septic tank system. On September 5, 2012, a repair permit was issued for the Digans' property. On September 7, 2012, the repairs to the Digans' system were inspected and approved. There was no emergency on September 1, 2012, that necessitated repairs to the Digans' septic tank system on that date. Pumping out the Digans' tank on that date would have addressed any immediate concern. On-site inspections before septic tank systems are repaired are critical to public health because they assure that groundwater contamination is avoided, that the existing tank is sound and will function as intended, and that setbacks to other properties, wells, or systems are adequate. Respondent knew or should have known that performing any work before an inspection negates the safeguards to public health concerns. Respondent knew or should have known that the materials needed to adequately repair the Digans' septic tank system exceeded the chambers he took to the site on September 1, 2012. Digging up the Digans' system on September 1, 2012, created a sanitary nuisance. Respondent's History In the event a violation is found in this case, Respondent's disciplinary history would be relevant in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed. To that end the following findings are made: Respondent has previously been found in violation of failing to call for a required inspection; and Respondent has previously been found in violation of practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue misrepresentations, or misconduct that causes no monetary harm to a customer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's authorizations to perform septic tank services be suspended for a period not less than 90 days. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in an amount not less than $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health Bin A00 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tony C. Dodds, Esquire Law Office of Tony C. Dodds 904 South Missouri Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803-1034 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740
