Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Kenneth W. Barron for a septic tank be DENIED; however, applicant should be given thirty days from date of the final order in which to raise the tank to a height consistent with the construction permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1983.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated the standards of practice in septic tank contracting, Florida Administrative Code rule 64E-6.022, and, if so, the penalty. (All references to Respondent are to Arlender Miller. All references to Ms. Rooter are to Ms. Rooter, Inc.)
Findings Of Fact At the times of the alleged jobs, Respondent was registered as a septic tank contractor and served as the qualifying agent for Ms. Rooter. At the time of all three jobs, Respondent had apparent authority to serve as the agent of Ms. Rooter in contracting for and performing the septic tank contracting work described below. However, nothing in the record establishes any relationship between Respondent and Ms. Rooter at the time of the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, so as to justify treating the notice of this proceeding, when served upon Respondent, as notice to Ms. Rooter. Hans Seffer, who testified, is the son of the woman who owns the apartment complex located at 14950 North Miami Avenue, Miami. Mr. Seffer found Ms. Rooter on the internet and spoke with Carolyn Futch, operations manager of Ms. Rooter, about septic tank contracting services needed at the apartment complex. Respondent later met with Mr. Seffer at the property. Initially, Mr. Seffer believed that the existing septic tank needed only to be pumped out. However, upon inspection, Respondent determined that the system also required a new drainfield, pump, and dosing tank. Accordingly, on February 20, 2008, Respondent, as "technician," and either Mr. Seffer or his mother signed a one-page contract on a form identifying the contractor as Ms. Rooter, license number SA0071430. The contract describes the following work: Install 1,000 sq. ft. drainfield with 300 gallon dosing tank including immediate (2/21/08) tank pump out. Additionally if tank requires pumpout prior to securing all necessary permits, Ms. Rooter will perform pumpout at no additional cost. Manhole cover included. Respondent and either Mr. or Mrs. Seffer initialed this section of the contract. The contract states that the total due for this work is $10,500. Ms. Seffer paid $5,000 by check on February 21, 2008, leaving a $5,500 balance due. On March 1, 2008, Respondent, as agent for Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system. The application describes the property improvements as a multifamily complex with ten bedrooms and 5,284 square feet of building space. The site plan attached to the application states: "Replace drainfield only." On April 2, 2008, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Seffer to confirm an earlier discussion between them. The discussion addressed a requirement of Petitioner that Ms. Rooter install a second tank. The email states that the property owner will pay $5,600 for the installation of a "2nd tank (1,050-gal)," so the new total contract price is $11,100. This email restates the scope of the work as the installation of a 1,000-square-foot drainfield and 300-gallon dosing tank. By return email two days later, Mr. Seffer agreed to the additional work. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner issued to the property owner a construction permit that specifies a 2,575-gallon septic tank and a 1,000 square-foot drainfield. The permit states: "The licensed contractor installing the system is responsible for installing the minimum category of tank in accordance with sec. 64E-6.013(3)(f), F.A.C." This rule does not refer to tank capacities. On April 23, 2008, Petitioner issued a "construction inspection and final approval" form that shows the installation of two 1,200-gallon septic tanks and a 1,005-square-foot drainfield. The form states that items bearing an "X" are "not in compliance with statute or rule and must be corrected." The construction and final system are approved by Petitioner's inspector. During the course of the work, Respondent told Mr. Seffer that the existing tank was damaged and needed to be replaced, at an additional cost of $5,000, so the remaining balance rose to $16,100. Mr. Seffer agreed to this change. By email dated April 30, 2008, to Mr. Seffer, Ms. Futch confirmed the additional cost of $5,000 for the second septic tank and expressed "hope [that] Ms. Rooter has met your expectations." The email acknowledges, however, that "we must complete the electrical portion of the job." On May 2, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Rooter two checks totaling $15,000, leaving a balance of $1,100. On the same date, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch an email that, pursuant to their agreement, he would retain this amount for the "electric and final raking work." By email dated May 27, 2008, to Ms. Futch, Mr. Seffer noted that the manhole that Ms. Rooter had installed in the middle of the lawn was not level and was sunken, presenting a tripping hazard; the final grading was incomplete, leaving low spots and holes; a large rock remained near the palm tree and needed to be removed. Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch a reminder email on June 4, 2008, that resent the May 27 email. Mr. Seffer sent another email to Ms. Futch on June 21, 2008. In it, he notes that a Ms. Rooter employee worked on digging an electrical trench on June 13, but left mid-day, and no work had been performed since that day. In the meantime, recent rains had revealed a lack of compaction in the backfilling done by Ms. Rooter, as the fill had settled and undermined a sidewalk. After failing to obtain a response, on July 26, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent a final email to Ms. Futch warning her that he would file complaints with governmental agencies and advising that the unconnected pump was not pumping sewage throughout the entire system. The record does not contain the contracts for the septic tank contracting services involved in the second and third jobs alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Also, Petitioner did not present the testimony of the property owners involved in these jobs. The record for these jobs is limited to the permitting documentation. On September 26, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Shoreview Properties, Respondent submitted an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 9999 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores. This application describes the property as commercial with a 47,771 square-foot building. On October 1, 2008, Petitioner's inspector inspected the property. The inspector found an opened drainfield area with contaminated material and other conditions capable of hosting various disease vectors. He also found a backhoe and worker, who claimed that someone else had excavated the drainfield. The inspector immediately posted an ONASN, pursuant to the authority of chapter 386, Florida Statutes, that required the immediate abatement of the listed insanitary conditions. The inspector also determined that the existing onsite sewage disposal system exceeded Petitioner's jurisdictional threshold of 5,000 gallons per day. On September 10, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Lisa Mullin, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 101 Northeast 195th Street, Miami. This application describes the property as 0.19 acres, on which is situated a single family residence comprising 1,663 square feet and three bedrooms. On September 22, 2008, an agent of the property owner called Petitioner and complained that Ms. Rooter had commenced the work without having first obtained a permit. Petitioner's inspector visited the site on the same day and found "very recent" earthwork. The owner informed the inspector that the contractor had installed three drainlines, cut an old water line, and installed a new water line over the drainfield. However, the record fails to establish the amount of time that elapsed between the work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Rooter and the report by the property owner. Respondent has paid numerous fines imposed by Petitioner for improper septic tank contracting. In 1999, Respondent paid a fine in an unspecified amount for performing an unpermitted drainfield repair and making the repair without the required filter sand. On January 27, 2000, Respondent paid a fine of $250 for performing unpermitted system repairs. On February 4, 2000, Respondent was assessed a fine of $1,000 for performing unpermitted and uninspected system repairs and failing to honor a warranty. On January 8, 2004, Respondent received a cease and desist order for qualifying more than one septic tank contracting business. In 2007, Respondent paid separate fines of $1,500 and $1,000 for illegal septic tank contracting work in Dade and Monroe counties, respectively.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations identified in paragraphs 26, 27, and 29 above, dismissing the remaining charges against him, dismissing any charges against Ms. Rooter, and revoking Respondent's septic tank contracting registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 31st day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Arlender Miller 640 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Jenea Reed, Esquire Miami Dade County Health Department 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 214 Miami, Florida 33126 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Shairi Turner, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim Berfield, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue This case arises out of the Petitioner's objection to the issuance of a septic tank permit for property adjacent to his lot in Panama City Beach, Florida. The sole issue before the Hearing Officer, as alleged by Petitioner's pleading, is whether the applicant's permit for septic tank should be denied on the basis that it is in violation of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that no septic tank be placed within 75 feet of a private water supply well. On November 15, 1982, by certified mail, the Bay County Health Department notified Petitioner of its intent to grant a permit for a septic tank at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on December 13, 1982, Respondent filed a petition for formal proceeding, objecting to the issuance of the aforementioned permit and requesting a formal hearing. Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held at which the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and also called Paul Miller, an Environmental Sanitarian for the Bay County Health Department as a witness. Respondents called as witnesses Michael Sarra, Bay County Health Department, William Curtis Wright, and Thomas F. Gladstone. Petitioner offered and had admitted two exhibits and Respondents offered and had admitted three exhibits. The Petitioner, subsequent to the formal hearing, filed with the undersigned Hearing Officer two late-filed exhibits. No permission had been granted or requested at the formal hearing for the filing of late-filed exhibits and, therefore, those exhibits were neither considered nor utilized as a basis for the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted herein, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 15, 1982, Mr. Dewayne Dilmore, by and through his contractor, Tom Gladstone, applied for a septic tank permit for a new residence located at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida (See Petitioner's Exhibit B). After a required change in the design drawings reducing the structure from a 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom residence, the application was determined to be in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements and was approved by the Bay County Health Department. Petitioner, Samuel M. Torrence, owns a residence at 6715 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. This home is west of and contiguous to Mr. Dilmore's lot. In response to a Notice of Intent to issue a septic tank permit for the adjacent lot, 6713 Gulf Drive, Mr. Torrence objected on the grounds that such septic tank would be located within 75 feet of his private water supply well. Prior to the June 15, 1982, application by Mr. Dilmore, there was an existing septic tank on Mr. Dilmore's lot. This septic tank had been on the lot since April, 1961. The Petitioner's home at 6715 Gulf Drive was constructed in 1968 or 1969. 4 The replacement septic tank on the applicant's lot will be located farther from the Petitioner's property than the existing septic tank. The testimony of Paul Miller and Michael Sarra, along with the approved application, establish that the application of Dewayne Dilmore and the proposed replacement septic tank meet all requirements of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statute 381.272(1982). Approximately two years ago, Mr. Torrence had his home at 6715 Gulf Drive hooked into city water, and has no private well hooked up to any of the pipes of his home. Although the Petitioner contended that the replacement septic tank would be within 75 feet of a private well on his property, there was no evidence in the record of the specific location on his property of a private well or any measurements he had made. The evidence does not show that there is in fact a private well within 75 feet of the location of the replacement septic tank. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has an established policy of grandfathering existing septic tanks, and this policy permits the septic tank on the Dilmore property as a replacement of an existing septic tank regardless of whether said tank would be located within 75 feet of a private water supply well on the Petitioner's property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is:: RECOMMENDED: That the permit for septic tank be issued and Petitioner's request to halt issuance should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 12 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 12 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel M. Torrence Post Office Box 7106 Dothan, Alabama 36302 John Pearce, Esquire Department of HRS 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. Mike Sarra and Mr. Paul Miller Bay County Health Department Post Office Box 1728 Panama City, Florida 32402 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent’s license as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, holding Registration No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453. David B. Grimes is employed by Bay County Health Department as an inspector responsible for the inspection of on- site sewage systems. On August 22, 2007, Mr. Grimes inspected an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) being constructed by Respondent at 5431 John Pitts Road, Panama City, Florida. The OSTDS failed to meet the minimum rule requirements due to a defective tank and improperly installed drainfield. The tank was defective because its dimensions were smaller than the dimensions required to enable the tank to have sufficient liquid capacity for the system being installed. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Upon learning that the system would not be approved, Respondent, who is a large man and larger than the inspector, threatened to do bodily harm to Mr. Grimes and stated, “I am going to whip your ass”. He also used other profanity in a threatening and serious voice. The inspector began to put his tools into the tool container on the back of his truck. When the inspector attempted to close the container’s lid and leave, Respondent blocked the path of the inspector and would not let him close the truck-bed lid. Respondent insisted the system be inspected and approved so he could finish the job. Other than blocking his path, Respondent did not take any other physical action towards harming Mr. Grimes. Other than with his hands, the evidence did not show that Respondent had the means to cause serious harm to Mr. Grimes. However, Mr. Grimes felt some fear for his safety and was very uncomfortable. He refused to approve the system and left the premises. He called his supervisor to report the incident and request a second inspection by his supervisor. Later that day, Mr. Grimes and his supervisor inspected the OSTDS. Respondent was not present. The inspector concurred with Mr. Grimes’ findings and the system was not approved. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Grimes made a second visit to the property to continue the inspection of the OSTDS. The drainfield was corrected and a new and larger tank was installed. The dimensions of the tank were again smaller than required to meet the liquid capacity of the tank. Additionally, the tank had a gap in the seal around the intake feed line. It was, therefore, defective and could not be approved. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Respondent again grew angry when he was told the new tank was also defective and would not be approved. Respondent stated that Mr. Grimes was the worst inspector in the area and made other derogatory remarks towards him. Respondent also threatened to make trouble with the inspector’s employment and/or “get him fired” unless the system was passed. The evidence did not show that Respondent made any physical moves toward Respondent or otherwise impeded his inspection. The inspector was again fearful for his personal safety although the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable basis for such fear. The OSTDS was not approved and Mr. Grimes left the work site. There was no evidence that Respondent followed through with interfering with Mr. Grimes’ employment. At best, the evidence showed that Respondent’s threat to interfere with the inspector’s employment was mere hyperbole. Such comments are common. While silly and rude, the mere threat of an employment action does not rise to the level of being unlawful and does not demonstrate misconduct sufficient to impose discipline on Respondent’s license. On the other hand, the actions of Respondent towards the inspector when he threatened to do bodily harm to the inspector, and blocking his attempts to leave unless he approved the system, did constitute gross misconduct on the part of Respondent. Even though Respondent’s actions were unsuccessful, Respondent’s words coupled with his conduct go beyond mere hyperbole and constitute an unlawful threat towards a public official to influence the official’s actions. Respondent’s actions did not cause physical or monetary harm to any person. In the past, Respondent was disciplined by letter of warning in Case Number SC0478 in 2000, for covering a new installation in violation of the system construction standards and by citation in Case Number SC0591 in 2001, for creation of a sanitary nuisance, negligence, misconduct, and falsification of inspection report. The instant violation is a second violation for misconduct and a repeat violation of the rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license be disciplined for violations of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 and that his Septic Tank Contractor License No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453 be fined in the amount of $500.00 and suspended for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 5th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 G. D. Yon, Jr. Yon Septic Tank Co. 2988 Hwy 71 Marianna, Florida 32446 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte-Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayó, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Prior to November, 1987, Petitioners purchased adjoining Lots 56 and 57 located in West Vic Holiday Sands subdivision in Santa Rosa County. 1/ The two lots constitute substantially less than a fourth of an acre of land. Petitioners intended to place two two bedroom mobile homes on the lots for use as a weekend retreat for their families. When Petitioners purchased the two lots, the lots had an existing 900 - 1050 gallon septic tank on the property. The tank had been previously approved by the Department of Pollution Control in 1973 for Recreational vehicle/campsite use. The tank had never been permitted for use as a homesite, such as a two bedroom mobile home would require. A Recreational Vehicle (RV) is generally considered by HRS to be a motor vehicle with a maximum size of 8'x 35'. Anything substantially over that size, as Petitioners' two mobile homes were, would not be considered for RV use and would be required to obtain a homesite type permit. Petitioners were required by their proposed use of the property to obtain a homesite permit. However, Petitioners did not discover the homesite permit requirement until after they had purchased the two lots and after they had purchased two mobile homes at considerable monetary cost to themselves. The Petitioners did not think about investigating whether a septic tank permit would be required because the subdivision area had permanent residences already in place. However, the evidence demonstrated the majority of these residences are located on four lots. There are a few residences located on fewer than four lots and on lots the size of Petitioners. 2/ The residences with nonconforming septic tanks were permitted by HRS under a mistaken interpretation of the law by the local Health Department office. However, about a year prior to Petitioners' permit and at the request of the local office, the local office was audited and its interpretation was brought into compliance with state law. Petitioners were, therefore, no longer entitled to rely on the local office's previous misinterpretation of the law and in previously issuing permits authorized under that misinterpretation of the law. Petitioners applied for an existing septic tank permit on November 23, 1987. Because the existing tank did not have enough capacity or drainage area for the Petitioners' desired use and the size of the property was under one- quarter acre, Respondent informed Petitioners they would have to seek a variance from the usual septic tank permit requirements. 3/ Petitioners applied for a variance. Petitioners felt a hardship variance should be granted due to the amount of money they had spent on the property and the fact Respondent had granted other nonconforming permits under its mistaken interpretation of the septic tank law. Neither of the Petitioners appeared at the variance review committee meeting in Ocala, Florida, which considered their variance request. However, the local health official recommended approval of the variance since other tanks had been mistakenly approved previously. The committee reviewed Petitioners' application and other relevant information about the property. The committee determined that no hardship existed and denied the permit. Petitioners received the committee's letter of denial on February 20, 1988. The evidence showed that Petitioners had spent close to $14,000.00 in purchasing the property and preparing it for occupancy. However, monetary expenditures alone have never been considered sufficient to establish a hardship in permitting cases. Petitioners presented no evidence which would cause such expenditures to amount to a hardship. Use of their property is still available, although that use is not exactly what Petitioners had in mind. Moreover, Petitioners may still recoup the money spent on the mobile homes by renting or selling them. Under these facts, no hardship was shown by Petitioners. In essence, Petitioners failed to show any monetary losses as opposed to expenditures of a significant nature. Likewise, Petitioners failed to establish justifiable reliance on the Respondent's previous mistakes, i.e., estoppel. Respondent's mistakes were not known by Petitioners at the time the majority of Petitioners' expenditures were incurred. The evidence regarding the general appearance of the subdivision was insufficient to establish a basis for such reliance. Moreover, Petitioners had the opportunity and the initial burden to investigate any potential governmental requirements prior to their purchase of the property. Again, no hardship was established by Petitioners' utilizing the theory of estoppel. Finally, Petitioners failed to present any reliable evidence that the discharge from their septic tank would not adversely affect the health of the public or would not significantly degrade the ground or surface waters of the State. The fact that other nonconforming tanks are in place with relatively few observable problems does not support the further inference that one more nonconforming tank won't hurt in an already overloaded area. Under these facts, Petitioners are not entitled to a variance from the Department's septic tank requirements; and therefore, are not entitled to a septic tank permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent request for a variance from the septic tank permit requirements be DENIED and the request for a septic tank permit be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Rule 64E-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, by repairing a septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on him.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health (Department), is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing laws and rules relating to sanitation. Section 381.0011(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to appear at the duly-appointed time and place for the administrative hearing in this matter. On April 22, 1999, Gregory Crumpton, Environmental Specialist with the Pasco County Health Department, responded to a sanitary nuisance complaint regarding Respondent's property located at 7111 Lofty Drive, Port Richey, Florida. Based on that complaint, on April 22, 1999, Mr. Crumpton inspected Respondent's property. His inspection revealed the presence of untreated or improperly treated human waste from an improperly maintained septic tank. Based on his April 22, 1999, inspection of Respondent's property and his determination that the condition existing on Respondent's property constituted a sanitary nuisance, Mr. Crumpton issued an Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance. The notice was left on Respondent's property. Moreover, on April 22, 1999, a copy of the notice was mailed to Respondent by certified mail. Respondent signed the return receipt acknowledging that he had received the notice. On April 26, 1999, Mr. Crumpton received a second complaint from a neighbor of Respondent who reported that Respondent's septic tank was being repaired without a permit. Upon inspecting Respondent's property on April 27, 1999, Mr. Crumpton observed that repair work was being performed on Respondent's septic tank without a permit. On April 27, 1999, Mr. Crumpton met with Respondent regarding the inspection and issued to Respondent a second Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance, which was sent by certified mail. This notice was issued to Respondent because of the installation and/or repair to septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit. The April 27, 1999, notice advised Respondent that his failure to secure a septic tank repair permit could result in his being fined up to $500.00 per day until he obtained the required permit. Although Respondent was advised that he could be fined up to $500.00 per day for failing to secure a permit to repair his septic tank, as of May 18, 1999, Respondent had not secured the permit. On May 18, 1999, Mr. Crumpton issued a citation alleging that Respondent had installed and/or repaired a septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, October 19, 1999, Respondent had failed to secure a septic tank repair permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00, obtain a septic tank repair permit, and effect repairs. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 2nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara A. McPherson, Esquire Department of Health 300 31st Street North Suite 338 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Shane Whitfield 7111 Lofty Drive Port Richey, Florida 34668 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether or not Respondent failed to reasonably honor a warranty relating to the installation and repair of a septic tank system.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the regulatory agency which regulates the installation and prescribed standards for on-site sewage disposal systems. Respondent, Alan Billings d/b/a Billing's Liquid Waste Removal, is a Florida entity registered and authorized by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services. On or about February 12, 1992, Respondent performed a septic tank repair at a two bedroom residential home located at 13904 Summers Avenue, in Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. Respondent's repairs consisted of adding 100 square foot of drainfield to the existing system, three yards of rock, cover paper, pipe, and a distributor box. Respondent provided the repairs as he agreed to on or about February 11, 1992. Installation of the additional drainfield by Respondent was proper and based on the size of the home (a two bedroom house), it was adequate for the building's normal requirement. Petitioner's expert, Van Kampen, testified without contradiction that the septic tank system repairs by Respondent were proper and was attached to an existing system which further added to the capacity of the system. The added capacity was far in excess of the particular purpose required for the home if used by a family of four. Based on the size of the home in which Respondent made the repairs, the maximum water usage anticipated would have been 4500 gallons of water per month. Documentary evidence introduced herein indicates that during the months in question, the average water usage at the subject home exceeded 11,000 gallons per month. The unexpected usage caused a "hydraulic overload" of the system, and was not within Respondent's expectations when he repaired it. Van Kampen related that the family that resided in the home consisted of seven (7) members. Respondent was unaware of that fact nor was he apprised of this fact until subsequent to the repairs when the system failed due to a hydraulic overload. Respondent did not offer a warranty to cover the "hydraulic overload" which is at issue herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint filed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ron Smith, Esquire 12360 66th Street North Largo, Florida 34643 Shirley K. Hart, Esquire HRS District V Legal Office 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 407 Largo, Florida 34648-1630
The Issue Whether Respondent should be disciplined for violating Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CB C033338, and doing business under the name of Mark V. Ansley Building Contractors. On April 17, 1987, Respondent entered into a Construction Agreement with Mr. Kersey. The Agreement called for Respondent to build a house containing two bedrooms, one and one- half baths and a one-car garage in exchange for $31,860. Under the Agreement, construction was to begin on April 21, 1988. However, due to a problem with the lot on which the house was going to be built, there were delays. Mr. Kersey then decided to build the house on a lot across the street from the original lot. The lot was cleared on May 1, 1987, by Mr. Morris Snell. The septic tank permit was issued on June 17, 1987. The construction permit was issued on June 22, 1987. Construction of the residence began a week later and the slab was poured the second week of July, 1987. After the slab was poured, Mr. Kersey determined that the foundation was approximately 890 square feet instead of the 944 contracted for. After some negotiations between Mr. Kersey and Respondent, they agreed that Respondent would add a Florida room to make up the difference in square footage. The foundation for the Florida room was built four inches lower than the main house. There were problems with the roof trusses and with the framing which were corrected by Respondent. The company which manufactured the roof trusses sent the wrong trusses to the house. Mr. Kersey, who was present at the house when the trusses were being installed, noticed they were the wrong ones and stopped work on the house. After Respondent was informed, he notified the truss company and the correct trusses were delivered approximately ten days later and installed. The initial framing of the house was deficient and did not pass inspection. Respondent fired the persons who had done the framing, fixed the problems, and the framing passed inspection. Also, the persons framing the house left out a closet in one room of the house, but upon being informed, this was corrected. By this time, Mr. Kersey had made two payments to Respondent pursuant to their agreement. The first payment was for $3,100 and the second for $4,000. After the house was framed, Respondent expected to be out of town for two to three weeks. Respondent told Mr. Kersey that he was having problems collecting money from other jobs and that he would be unable to meet the construction schedule unless he had the money to pay for the necessary supplies right on the spot rather than waiting until Mr. Kersey returned. Mr. Kersey gave Respondent $15,000 in advance to allow Respondent to continue working on the house while he was gone. At this same time, July 18, 1987, Respondent and Mr. Kersey agreed that the house should be completed by September 15, 1988. Mr. Kersey returned from his trip in about 10 days and noticed that nothing had been done on the house. Mr. Kersey was unable to contact Respondent for two weeks, even though he wrote Respondent a letter and left messages with Respondent's secretary and on a telephone answering machine. During this period of time, Mr. Kersey hired an attorney. On August 1, 1987, Mr. Kersey finally spoke with Respondent about the lack of progress on the house. The Respondent told Mr. Kersey that it had rained almost constantly for 10 days and needed materials could not be delivered to the house. Respondent continued to do work on the house. Respondent contracted with a company to deliver and install windows. The window company in turn hired a subcontractor to install the windows. The subcontractor installed the windows improperly and eight of the sixteen windows had to be replaced by someone other than Respondent. Mr. Kersey agreed with Respondent that he would pay $1300, in addition to the contract price of the house, for the installation of a septic tank and drain field at the original location for the house. Respondent obtained the septic tank permit and arranged to have Mr. Carver of Carver's Septic Tank install the septic tank at the new location. Mr. Carver's estimate for the job was $1,810 and he agreed to do the job on the assurance by Mr. Kersey that he would pay for the job. Mr. Carver placed the septic tank and drain field at a location different from that which had been requested by Mr. Kersey and different from that shown on the survey map on file with the permit application at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In preparing the ground for the septic tank, Mr. Carver dug up the roots of an existing oak tree to a depth of from three to six feet around three-fourths of the tree's circumference. Also, the septic tank was located in close proximity to a three- inch free-flowing artesian well. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services initially gave its approval for the septic tank to be covered up. But after Mr. Kersey met with the Department's staff, the department disapproved the septic tank because it was located too close to the well. Mr. Carver did not finish work on the septic tank because he was not paid for the work he had done. In order to obtain approval for the septic tank, Mr. Kersey had to "abandon" the artesian well. This was accomplished by pouring 12 sacks of concrete into the well and pipe to seal it off. This job cost Mr. Kersey $840.00. Mr. Kersey also hired another company to complete the septic tank and drain field, and had to pay $700 to move the drain field. Sometime in August and September, Mr. Kersey began receiving information that some of the suppliers and subcontractors for the house had not been paid by Respondent and that liens would be placed on the property if they were not paid. Eventually, three companies filed claims of lien against the property. Sometime in September or October, Mr. Kersey posted signs on the house which stated that no further work was to be done on the house. When Respondent contacted Mr. Kersey, he was referred to Mr. Kersey's attorney. Respondent indicated to the attorney that he wanted to complete the job, and he was allowed to continue working on the job. During the next two weeks Respondent had the drywall and cabinets installed, put in the driveway, and painted. However, at a subsequent meeting with Mr. Kersey and his attorney, Mr. Kersey was not satisfied with the way the house was being built and stated he did not want Respondent on the job any more. Respondent did no more work on the house. On November 13, 1987, Mr. Kersey and Respondent met for the purpose of determining which subcontractors and suppliers had not been paid. At that time Respondent indicated that five subcontractors and suppliers had not been paid and that they were owed a total of $12,199. However, there were other subcontractors who had not been paid. In May, 1988, Mr. Kersey hired another contractor to complete the house. Mr. Kersey initially agreed to pay $9,400 for the work of this contractor, but ended up paying $14,000 because the contractor had to do work which was not included in the initial contract. Part of the work done by this contractor consisted of fixing or replacing a six-foot sliding glass door, three interior doors, and one exterior door which had been installed under Respondent's supervision. As mentioned in Findings of Fact 26, supra, three liens were placed on the property by materials suppliers. The three liens were perfected by Davis Windows, the company with which Respondent contracted for the purchase and installation of the windows for $1,888.22; Holmes Lumber Company, a company which provided building materials and supplies, for $4,032.08; and Gator Door for $1,152.93. Mr. Kersey is contesting the lien placed by Davis Windows. He has paid the amount due Holmes Lumber. He has not paid Gator Door. In addition to the companies which filed liens, the company that installed the cabinets was not paid at the time the cabinets were installed. Respondent paid for the cabinets on April 6, 1988. Also, Respondent paid Davis Windows $1,000, in March, 1988 and paid Gator Door $500 sometime in 1988. Finally, Respondent sent $1,500 to Holmes Lumber, ostensibly for Mr. Kersey's account, but the $1,500 was credited to another of Respondent's accounts which was in arrears. Respondent has entered into an agreement with Mr. Kersey to repay the amounts he may be owed due to Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,750 fine on Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2746 The Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1. True, but not a finding of fact. 2., 3. Accepted generally. RO1. The evidence is unclear as to whether Mr. Ansley's business is incorporated. 4. Accepted. RO2. However, when the 120 days began to run cannot be determined. The original contract had to be amended from the beginning, since no construction took place on the original lot. 5. Subordinate to facts found. See RO3. 6. Accepted. RO 5., 6. 7. Rejected as irrelevant. Also, the evidence presented does not establish that Respondent is responsible for Mr. Kersey paying $1,220 to Mr. Snell. 8. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. The evidence is contradictory as to when construction would begin. The septic tank and construction permits were not issued until June. 9. Rejected as irrelevant. 10. Rejected as irrelevant. 11. Accepted generally. RO2. 12. Accepted. RO8. Accepted. RO14-l5. Accepted. RO16-18. 15, 16. Accepted. RO20. 17, 18. Accepted as modified in RO 21-25. Second and third sentences of 17 are rejected as not supported by competent evidence. See also discussion of this issue in Conclusions of Law section of this RO. 19. Accepted. RO 27-28. 20., 21., 22. Accepted. RO 26., 30., 33. 23. Accepted generally. RO 29, 31. 24., 25., 27., 28., 29. Rejected as not findings of fact. Also, the opinions of Mr. Adams were based, in part, on evidence which was not presented at the hearing. Additionally, it is unclear that Respondent was charged with some of the violations alleged by Mr. Adams. 26., 30-34. Rejected as irrelevant and a recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark V. Ansley 7004 Luke Street Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor, registration number SR0041456. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services through the corporation "Anytime Septic Enterprise, Inc.," authorization number SA0091662. The Respondent has advertised his services to the public as a septic tank contractor and has engaged in the business of providing septic tank services since at least September 2010. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was permitted to provide septage disposal services via permit number 36-QA-28986 issued by the Lee County Health Department. On or about September 13, 2010, the Respondent was hired to pump a septic system located at 2710 Northwest 5th Street, Cape Coral, Lee County, Florida, by another septic tank contractor. The employing contractor had been hired to service and repair the septic system, but did not have the ability to pump the tanks. On September 13, 2010, the Respondent pumped out the septic tank. The Respondent did not pump out the "dosing tank," a part of the septic system connected to the septic tank. After pumping out the septic tank, the Respondent completed a "DH Form 4015," signed and dated on September 13, 2010. The form collected information on the evaluation and repair of the septic system, including identification of system components and tank capacities. The contractor servicing the system is required to complete the form and identify the services provided. The Respondent identified the components of the referenced septic system and the capacities of both the septic and dosing tanks. The Respondent signed and dated the certification statement. As completed by the Respondent, the certification statement stated as follows: I certify that the listed tanks were pumped on 9/13/10 by Anytime Septic, have the volumes specified as determined by legend are free of observable defects or leaks, and have a [solids deflection device/outlet filter device] installed. Although the Respondent certified that he pumped the dosing tank on September 13, 2010, he did not pump the dosing tank on that date. The Respondent certified the dosing tank to be free of observable defects or leaks; however, the failure to pump the dosing tank prevented proper observation of the dosing tank, and it is highly unlikely that an accurate evaluation of the condition of the dosing tank was possible under the circumstances. Under the applicable rule, a pumper may perform an incomplete pumpout under certain circumstances, but the rule requires that the pumper must provide written documentation to the system owner identifying the reason for the incomplete pumpout, the gallonage pumped from the system, and the material left in the tank. The Respondent failed to provide such documentation to the system owner. An inspection by an employee of the Petitioner on September 16, 2010, revealed that the dosing tank had not been pumped and that the tank lids had not been sealed after the service. The Respondent was notified on September 20, 2010, that the dosing tank should have been pumped at the same time as the septic tank. On that same date, the Respondent returned to the site, pumped the dosing tank, and then completed, signed and dated a second "DH Form 4015" certifying that the dosing tank had been pumped. The Respondent recorded additional information on the form to indicate that the remaining work would be performed by the septic tank contractor who had employed the Respondent. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that upon the initial inspection of the property, the Respondent observed that the septic tank conditions were non-standard, that he communicated such information to the contractor who had hired him, and that the Respondent's services, including certification of the tanks, were provided in accordance with the requests of the contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order imposing a $1,500 fine against the Respondent for falsely certifying the work performed on September 13, 2010, and the condition of the dosing tank; for failing to fully pump the system without providing appropriate documentation; and for failing to properly seal the tank lids. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Duque, Esquire Southwest Alliance of County Health Departments 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Stephen M. Maher, Esquire Stephen M. Maher, Attorney at Law, P.A. 2077 First Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Secretary, State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
