Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alexis Crlenjak is the owner of an unimproved lot approximately 90 feet by 230 feet in size which abuts Black Creek in Clay County, Florida. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) By application received by the St. Johns River Subdistrict of the Department of Environmental Regulation on September 9, 1980, Petitioner sought a permit to place approximately 1,000 cubic yards of clean fill dirt over an area of 90 by 130 feet to a depth of 3 feet on the southern portion of his lot. The stated purpose for the request was to enable Petitioner to obtain a county permit to install a septic tank and drainfield in the filled portion of the lot. Such a permit previously had been denied by the county for the reason that inadequate drainage for a septic tank existed in the lot's present natural condition. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) Subsequent to receipt of the application, DER's Subdistrict Office solicited comments or objections to the proposed project from adjacent landowners and various governmental agencies. An adjoining landowner, Frederick G. Flagge, filed an opposition to the concept of placement of a septic tank and drainfield next to his land due to the possibility of seepage and contamination. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, expressed the view that placement of fill material in flood plain wetlands to raise the elevation for a septic tank placement is not in the public's interest and recommended denial of the application, and suggested that the applicant utilize the upland portion of his property for such purpose. The Southeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, concluded that the work would adversely impact fishery resources by filling productive wetlands and made a similar recommendation to that of the EPA. A representative of the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the area in November 1980, and found that the proposed project would destroy 0.27 acres of wetlands which provide nesting, feed and shelter habitat for various species of birds, maimals and reptiles. The agency therefore recommended that any fill be limited to upland areas. The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial because the project would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources by eliminating a protective wetland habitat. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) Petitioner's lot is bounded on the north by Black Creek, on the east by a dredged canal which terminates at a boat basin immediately south of his property. A filled driveway separates Petitioner' s land from the Flagge property to the west. Although the area surrounding the north bank of Black Creek is still in a natural condition, Petitioner's and Flagge's lots are practically the only ones on the south bank in that area which are undeveloped and still in a relatively natural state. The northern border of Petitioner's property is high and dry due to the berm along Black Creek which has been deposited over the years and has become vegetated. However, the southern half is a hardwood swamp area where blackgum is the dominant species, together with other species such as buttonbush, water ash, dahoon, willow, water locust, red maple and sweetgum. Black Creek is classified as a Class III body of water under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The type of vegetation on the southern portion of Petitioner's lot is associated with periodic inundation during seasonal rainfall, and is thus deemed to constitute the landward extent of waters of the state pursuant to the vegetative indices of Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. After receiving the application an environmental specialist in Respondent's subdistrict office visited the site and thereafter prepared a Permit Application Appraisal. He identified the various species of plant life located in the area to be filled and determined that it was properly within Respondent's jurisdiction. His appraisal found that the swamp area in question benefits the water quality of Black Creek by filtering sediments and assimilating pollutants generated by upland runoff. He also found that the area is a fish and wildlife habitat, provides flood control, and serves as a primary food source for fish and wildlife. He therefore determined that the proposed project would result in the elimination of those biological resources that aid in maintaining water quality and would further degrade water quality by adding septic tank waste in close proximity to the waterway. He concluded that the project as proposed would induce flooding on the lot to the West by blocking the flow through the swamp which presently is connected by a culvert under the filled driveway to the west. His supervisor subsequently visited the site and agreed with the application appraisal. It was their combined opinion that filling of the land would eventually lead to eutrophication of the adjacent canal and adversely affect the water quality of Black Creek. At the time of their visits, the DER personnel did not observe standing water on Petitioner's property, but did so on the adjacent lot to the west. (Testimony of Rector, Tyler, Exhibit 2) As a result of the adverse application appraisal, Respondent advised Petitioner on December 9, 1980, of its intent to deny the application based on the loss of submerged land, and anticipated water quality degradation by replacing the aquatic ecosystem with a septic tank and drain ield which has a potential for leaking into the adjacent canal. The Notice of Intent to Deny further specified state water quality standards which would be adversely affected, and found that the applicant had not provided the department with affirmative reasonable assurances that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in a violation of state water quality standards. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) At the hearing, Petitioner scaled down his request by stating that he now only wished to fill an area approximately 25 feet by 40 feet in the southwest corner of his lot to serve as the drainfield for a septic tank. However, the DER personnel who had reviewed the project testified that their recommendation of denial would not be changed in spite of the reduced proposed filling activity. They were of the opinion that the same considerations which led to the denial recommendation would still be present, except on a smaller scale. They indicated that Petitioner could still use his land, in spite of the permit denial, for recreational activities, or by erecting a "stilt" house on the lower half of the lot. However, in such an eventuality, the septic tank and drainfield would have to be placed on the upland portion of the lot. As petitioner pointed out, this cannot take place under current health regulations in view of the fact that a well is located on the north side of the adjacent lot, and the spacing distance would be insufficient for state and county permitting purposes. Although Petitioner denied that a culvert existed under the driveway separating the lots, he conceded that he had not visited the property for about a year. (Testimony of Tyler, petitioner, Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Victoria J. TSchinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Alexis Crlenjak Assistant General Counsel Route 2, Box 618 Department of Environmental Havana, Florida 32333 Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioner is entitled to a variance so as to allow the installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on the Petitioner's property located in Dixie County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, a platted subdivision in Dixie County, Florida. The Petitioner purchased the lot for residential purposes and seeks to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank) (OSDS) on that lot for purposes of serving a single family residence. The Petitioner originally filed a permit application seeking a permit authorizing installation and operation of an OSDS for that property. That permit application was filed on December 12, 1989. It was denied and the Petitioner sought a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings to contest that denial, which became Case No. 90-6134. That case was ultimately settled between the Petitioner and the Department and no permit application was granted. Instead, the Petitioner filed the subject application for a variance from the requirements of then Section 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was filed on June 21, 1991, with regard to Lot 24 only. By letter of October 9, 1991, the Department denied the application for variance and the Petitioner timely requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest that denial. Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, owned by the Petitioner is located on the Suwannee River. The Petitioner submitted a report of the Suwannee River Water Management District, in evidence, which indicates that the subject property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. The two year flood elevation at that location is 19 feet above mean-sea level (MSL). The ten year floor elevation at the installation site is 29 feet above MSL. The elevation of the proposed septic tank system installation site is 17.5 feet above MSL. Department personnel performed an inspection and an evaluation of the site. It was thus found and established by testimony and evidence, presented through witness Fross, that the water table level during the wet season is at or above the surface of the property at the installation site and the dry season water table level is approximately 6 inches below the surface grade of the property at the installation site. This is the reason, together with the fact that the property lies within the regulatory floodway and beneath the ten year flood evaluation of the Suwannee River for the river mile at the site, that the inspector recommended denial of a permit for an OSDS for the property. The Petitioner maintained that the information originally submitted and obtained from the Suwannee River Water Management District had incorrectly indicated the river mile at the site. The ten year and two year flood elevations are calculated according to the river mile at a given site, river miles being measurements of the linear distance of the Suwannee River and the Suwannee River floor plain. However, if the lower ten year flood elevation prevailing at the river mile the Petitioner maintained equated with the project site was applicable, by the Petitioner's own admission, the site in question (and indeed any location on any of the nearby lots he owns) would be below that resulting ten year floor elevation level. Ms. Emily Wilson testified on behalf of the Respondent. It was established that the education, experience and certification of Ms. Wilson as a registered sanitarian, together with her graduate and post-graduate degrees in the area of environmental science, accord her expertise in the areas of environmental protection, sewage disposal and sanitation and she was accepted as an expert in those fields. It was thus established that installation and operation of a septic system on the Petitioner's property would pose a threat to the ground and surface water in the vicinity of the site due to the high water table levels and the fact that the property, including the proposed installation site, is subject to frequent flooding. The exposure of the septic tank drainfield to ground or flood waters would allow the release of pathogens into those waters, which could be carried along into the ground or surface waters when the flood receded. These pathogens would endanger the health of the Petitioner, surrounding land owners and other persons through contamination of the drinking water supply. The pathogens could also endanger persons using the river for recreational purposes. The Department produced photographs which were introduced into evidence establishing that the road leading to the property was underwater due to flooding in the spring of 1991. That road runs along the back of the Petitioner's property and is further removed from the river than the actual installation site where the Petitioner proposes to install a septic system. After the flood receded, the water marks on the trees in the area of the proposed installation site on the Petitioner's property indicate that the area had been submerged under approximately three feet of water. The property was established to be subject to frequent flooding. Ms. Wilson is aware that other systems can potentially be used to adequately contain and treat sewage generated by a residence such as that the Petitioner envisions, including a closed system characterized by no sewage discharge. The applicant however has not submitted a proposal for such a system for consideration by the Department. She is unaware of any other system of sewage disposal that has previously been approved for use in low areas similar to that prevailing at the Petitioner's property and installation site. The Petitioner purchased the property under a contract for deed. The contract for deed specifically states that the property was subject to frequent flooding at the time the Petitioner purchased the property and the Petitioner was aware of that. The Petitioner purchased the property in spite of that representation in the contract for deed. The construction and use of a mounded septic tank and drainfield system designed to elevate the septic tank and drainfield a sufficient required distance above the groundwater table and the ten year flood elevation level could potentially be installed, but the system would require a very large, high mound. It was not shown that the dimensions of the lot would permit the installation of the required mound base pad, and mound itself, of a sufficient size to properly elevate the proposed system so that a permit could be approved. The mounded system required under proper design parameters provided for in the Department's rules would cause the mounded system to approach or even exceed the entire width of Lot 24. A mounded system located in the regulatory floodway, as Petitioner's property is located, would require issuance of a separate permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. There was no showing that the Petitioner sought such a permit nor any showing of the likelihood that such a permit could be granted at the time of the hearing. Additionally, the Department's rules require that a qualified engineer issue a certification with respect to the use of a mounded disposal system within the regulatory floodway which certifies that the insertion of fill material for constructing such a system in the floodway will not cause a rise in the level of the "base flood", also known as a "zero rise certificate." No such certification has been obtained. In order to establish compliance with the requirement for granting of a variance set forth in the legal authority cited below, the applicant must establish, among other things, that there is no reasonable alternative to the installation of the system proposed. The applicant has presented no evidence to show that there are no reasonable alternatives to the system proposed. Rather, the testimony and evidence indicates that indeed there may be alternative disposal systems and methods available, although the proof was not developed in this proceeding to establish what those might be. The consideration of another location for the system on a different lot or installation site presently owned by the Petitioner or of an alternative type of treatment and disposal system might be feasible but would require a new site evaluation and submission of appropriate information which could establish that a specific alternative system and/or location is feasible, in terms of the requirements in the statute and rules that no deleterious impacts to the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site would occur. Such an effort would have to be the subject of a separate permit application and is not at issue in this variance proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above, which denial should be without prejudice to a later permit application which might offer full consideration of potential, reasonable alternative sewage treatment and disposal systems and methods in the manner envisioned in Rule 10D-6.0471, Florida Administrative Code and other pertinent rules. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: All proposed finding of fact are accepted. The Petitioner presented no Proposed Findings of Fact but rather a posthearing pleading constituting, in effect, a closing legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Prior 3106 Waverly Avenue Tampa, Florida 33269 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for a variance from agency rules governing daily domestic sewage flow so as to authorize an increase in the number of seats for his restaurant located in Howey in the Hills, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Fletcher C. Bishop, Jr., is the owner of a parcel of property located at Lot 22, Block C-2, Lakeshore Heights Subdivision, 102 South Palm Avenue, Howey in the Hills, Florida. The property consists of .0946 acre, or approximately one-tenth of an acre, and is one of several parcels located in Block C-2. Since January 1997, the property has been leased to Robert P. Jencic, who now operates a pizza restaurant on the premises known as Hungry Howies Pizza Shop. According to Jencic, he has a contract to purchase the property from Bishop at the end of his lease, or on March 1, 1998. Whether the property was actually purchased by Jencic on that date is not of record. Lakeshore Heights Subdivision is not served by a central wastewater treatment system; rather, each lot is served by a septic tank and drainfield system. Lot 22 adjoins several other commercial or business establishments situated on Lots 20, 21, 23, and 23A in the western half of Block C-2, and all share a common drainfield easement located to the rear of the lots. Except for Lot 20, all lots have tied into the drainfield and now use the easement for waste disposal purposes. Because they share a common easement, each lot has been allocated a portion of the easement for its respective septic tank and drainfield. In Petitioner's case, he has been allocated approximately 990 square feet. After Jencic signed a commitment in January 1997 to lease and purchase the property, he made extensive renovations in order to convert the property to a restaurant. On or about February 20, 1997, Jencic met with a representative of the Lake County Health Department, an agency under the direction and control of Respondent, Department of Health (Department). At that time, Jencic filed an application for a site evaluation concerning the replacement of the existing onsite sewage disposal system. The application noted that he intended to operate a pizza restaurant with 56 proposed seats. On February 21, 1997, a site evaluation was conducted by Robin Gutting, a Lake County Department of Health environmental supervisor. According to her report [t]he property size of 4120 square feet with available central water will allow a maximum 236 gallons of sewage flow per day . . . This will allow a 12 seat restaurant using single service articles and operating less than 16 hours per day. . . The size of the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System would be a minimum 900 gallon tank with 197 square feet of drainfield trench configuration. (emphasis added) Jancic received a copy of the report on or about March 12, 1997, and it clearly conveyed to him the fact that he could operate no more than 12 seats in his restaurant due to sewage flow limitations on his property. Despite being on notice that the restaurant would be limited to only 12 seats due to the lot flow restrictions, on March 19, 1997, Jencic filed an application with the Lake County Health Department for a construction permit to replace the existing septic tank with a 900 gallon septic tank, install a 900 gallon grease trap, and utilize a 197 square-foot primary drainfield and a 200 square-foot bed system. The application indicated that Jencic intended to operate a restaurant "for 12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." On May 28, 1997, Jencic's application was approved for "12 seats, single service, open less than 16 hours per day." After installing the new tank and grease trap, Jencic began restaurant operations subject to the above restrictions. After operating his pizza restaurant for a short period of time, Jencic determined that he could generate a profit only if the restaurant could be expanded to allow more seats, and he could use china and silverware (full service articles) rather than single service articles (throwaway utensils). To do this, however, he would need a larger sewage treatment system. By letter dated November 9, 1997, Jencic requested a variance from various Department standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems so as to "increase the seating from 12 seats to a maximum of 36 seats and [authorize] the use of china, silverware, and dishes." Although the letter does not refer to any rules, the Department has treated the letter as seeking a variance from three of its rules found in Part I, Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. First, Rule 64E-6.001(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides that an establishment cannot exceed the lot flow allowances authorized under Rule 64E-6.005(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code. If the seating capacity in the restaurant were increased, Jencic would exceed the lot flow allowances in violation of this rule. Second, Rule 64E-6.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the manner in which a determination of lot densities shall be made. Among other things, daily sewage flow cannot exceed an average of 2,500 gallons per day per acre. The easement which Petitioner shares with other lots is far less than an acre, even counting the space allocated to the adjoining lots. Finally, Rule 64E-6.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that minimum design flows for systems serving a structure shall be based on the estimated daily sewage flow as determined by Table I of the rule. That table specifies an estimated daily sewage flow of 20 gallons per seat for restaurants using single service articles only and operating less than 16 hours per day. Therefore, a 12-seat restaurant with those operating characteristics would require a system that could handle at least 240 gallons of sewage flow per day. The table further provides that a restaurant operating 16 hours or less per day with full service will generate an estimated sewage flow of 40 gallons per seat. Thus, a restaurant with up to 36 seats, as Jencic has requested, would require a system handling at least 1,440 gallons of sewage flow per day. In order to qualify for a variance, an applicant must show that (a) the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; (b) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and (c) the discharge from the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. In its letter denying the variance, the Department asserts that Jancic has failed to show that items (a) and (c) have been satisfied. Jencic, who recently immigrated to this country, will suffer considerable financial hardship if the request for a variance is denied. Indeed, he demonstrated at hearing that his life savings have been invested in the restaurant, and his parents have placed a substantial mortgage on their property to assist him in his endeavor. If he does not purchase the property as required by his contract, he will be forced to restore the property to its original condition at great expense. In short, given his investment in renovations and equipment, unless the restaurant is expanded, he fears he must file for bankruptcy. Both parties agree that Jancic will suffer a hardship if the variance is not approved. However, Jancic was aware of the lot flow limitations before he made application to replace the existing septic tank in March 1997, and well before he began operating the restaurant in May 1997. Unfortunately, then, it must be found that the hardship was intentionally created by Jencic's own actions. If the variance were approved, it would result in a much larger amount of sewage being discharged into the easement, which could not handle that amount of flow. This in turn could cause the system to fail, thus creating a sanitary nuisance and the leaching of sewage into the groundwater. In this respect, Jancic has failed to show that the discharge will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. Jencic offered into evidence a summary of his water usage during a representative period in 1997. That document indicated that metered water usage was approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons per month, even when he temporarily (and without authority) expanded his restaurant to 24 seats during a recent two-month period to test water consumption at the higher seating capacity. However, because the sewage strength of a restaurant is far greater than that of a residence, a sewage system must be sized on estimated waste flow, and not metered water flow rates. Therefore, the fact that Jancic's monthly metered water usage is less than 4,000 gallons is not relevant to a determination of the issues. The same finding must be made with respect to Jancic's well-intentioned efforts to decrease water flow by installing high pressure toilets and timed spring systems on his hand sinks. Jencic also requested that he be allowed "spike time" during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., which are his peak hours of the day. In other words, the undersigned assumes that he is asking that consideration be given to the fact that he has virtually no business during the other hours of the working day, and that the flow during the peak hours alone would not be excessive on a daily basis. However, the Department's rules are calculated to maximum usage, and thus a "spike" allowance is not allowed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert P. Jencic 102 South Palm Avenue Howey in the Hills, Florida 34737 Marya Reynolds Latson, Esquire Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478 James Hardin Peterson, III, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondents' Division of Hotel and Restaurants' license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed for alleged violation of Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) and Florida Statute s. 509.221, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On April 19, 1977, Johnny Bell, inspector for petitioner's Division of Hotels and Restaurants, received notification from the Health Department of Sarasota County that respondents' place of business, Port-of-Call, resort apartments located at Longboat Key, Florida, was not connected to the sewerage system of Longboat Key. Bell inspected respondents' premises and discovered that a septic tank system was in use at the Port-of-Call. He informed respondents that they must connect to an "approved" sewerage system within sixty (60) days. On June 20, 1977, Bell returned to the premises and found that no action had been taken to connect to the Longboat Key system. Respondent Edward W. Henderson informed him that he should not have to go on such a system because his septic tanks were adequate and functioning properly. Bell did not examine the septic tanks or ascertain if they were, in fact, in proper condition and operating satisfactorily. He proceeded to issue a Notice to Show Cause as to why respondents' license No. 68-606H should not have a civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked. The stated cause for such intended action was as follows: "Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) ; Florida Statutes 509.221 -- Failure to have sewage system hooked into public sewerage system." The Notice to Show Cause also informed respondents of their right to an Administrative Hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondents thereafter requested such a hearing. There is no food operation at the Port-of- Call. (Testimony of Bell, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the charges against respondents be dismissed. Done and Entered this 10th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence C. Winson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building, Suite 210 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Meshad, Esquire 100 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577
The Issue The issue is whether respondents should have a civil penalty imposed against them for failing to repair allegedly faulty on-site sewage disposal units.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondents, Carl L. and Deborah J. Forrester, have resided on Lem Turner Road in Callahan, Nassau County, Florida, since December 1988. Their home is serviced by two underground sewage disposal systems, both located in the back yard and installed prior to 1983. In the fall of 1991, Betty Bailey and her now deceased husband began construction of a new home on the lot adjacent to the Forresters. The home was completed in early 1992. As a result of a complaint filed by Bailey with the Nassau County Public Health Unit, which is an arm of respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), respondents were required to obtain a construction permit to repair their sewage disposal systems. Because HRS concluded that respondents did not repair their systems as required by the permit, it contends they should be assessed a civil penalty until the violations are corrected, but that such fine not exceed $1500. This preliminary decision is embodied in an administrative complaint issued against respondents in early 1993. The street on which respondents live, Lem Turner Road, runs in a north- south direction. Beginning at the northern end of the block and going south are the Lindemann, Forrester, Bailey, and Campbell home sites, respectively. The natural slope of the land runs north to south so that water runs from the Lindemann property, which is the high point on the block, south over the Forrester property, then over the Bailey property, and finally through the Campbell property and into a small pond on an adjacent lot. Directly behind the Forrester lot is a home owned by Susan Lewis and her husband while Ronald K. Earl's home is located on a 3-acre home site directly behind Bailey's lot. There is also a sod farm which lies to the south and east of the block and, at its closest point, is no more than seventeen hundred feet from the Earl property. Since there is no central wastewater treatment plant, each of the homes in this area must use an individual sewage disposal unit (septic tank and drainfield). It is noted that because of the low elevation in the area, and the seasonal high water table elevation, at least 95 percent of all new systems currently installed in Callahan must use a septic tank with a mound-type of drainfield. When the Baileys were constructing their home, Betty Bailey noticed that the elevation of her property was lower than the Forresters' lot, and the area in the back yard immediately adjacent to the Forresters' property line was always "wet" and "mushy". Indeed, it was so wet that on occasion construction trucks would get stuck. She also observed water bubbling up out of the Forresters' yard adjacent to her property line. In an effort to eliminate the wet area, Bailey added a considerable amount of fill dirt to her lot and sodded the area. She recalls adding some twenty loads or so while Carl Forrester says it was much more than that. In any event, the elevation on her lot increased to a height slightly greater than that of the Forrester lot, and this changed the natural flow of stormwater runoff from over her lot to a ditch which straddles her property line. Even so, she says the fill and sod did not correct the wet condition near the property line and it still remained wet as of the date of hearing. After moving into her home in February 1992, Bailey began noticing a sewage odor emanating from the soggy area of ground running from her back yard to the Forresters' back yard. The odor, which was worst in the evening and when it rained, was so bad that it prevented her from using her screened back porch and swimming pool in the evening or entertaining friends outside. The condition still existed as of the date of hearing. Bailey spoke to Carl Forrester about the odor and mushy ground on several occasions. Once he told her there was an underground spring causing the wet ground and suggested she install a french drain system to convey stormwater runoff from her back yard. He also suggested the odor was caused by the nearby sod farm which used manure to fertilize the sod. Bailey contacted the Nassau County Public Health Unit on March 2, 1992, and requested that it check out the source of the problem. Shortly thereafter, Stanley Stoudenmire, a Nassau County environmental health care specialist, inspected the area where respondents' property abuts the Bailey property and observed "mushy" ground, standing water, flies, and bright green algae growth. He also smelled hydrogen sulfide, which is indicative of a failing drainfield, and observed water coming out of the ground. Without the need to take water samples, Stoudenmire identified the pooling liquid as effluent flowing from respondents' drainfields. All of these conditions were indicative of a failed sewage system and constituted a sanitary nuisance. It is noted that an improperly operating system is a threat to human life and safety since it can cause a number of diseases. After advising Carl Forrester that there was a problem with his drainfield, Stoudenmire was told by Forrester that his systems had been checked out by two septic tank firms and nothing was wrong. Nonetheless, Stoudenmire advised Forrester to repair the systems. Stoudenmire continued to monitor the situation and even ran a red dye test on one visit. This produced no evidence of a faulty system, but the test is not a conclusive indicator of a failed system. After Bailey continued to make complaints and further inspections revealed that no repairs had been made, Stoudenmire advised Forrester by letter dated July 9, 1992, that he must obtain a permit to correct the systems. On July 13, 1992, Carl Forrester made application for a permit. The application required him to make a site and soil evaluation and prepare a drawing of the proposed corrections. The next day, Stoudenmire conducted a soil and site evaluation on the Forrester property as an aid to them in determining the type of repairs that they needed and the specifications for the drainfield. According to the soil borings, which were not contradicted, the bottom of the existing drainfields were not separated from the seasonal high water table elevation by at least twelve inches, as required by Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Further, the area had a clay subsurface, which means that water percolation is not good. On July 16, 1992, respondents made application for a construction permit. The permit contained specifications consistent with Stoudenmire's evaluation and required respondents to disconnect both existing systems and install a mound-type drainfield, like that in Betty Bailey's back yard, so that the required 12-inch separation could be achieved. The permit required the work to be completed within ninety days. On September 15, 1992, Stoudenmire advised respondents by letter that they "had not notified (his) office of any efforts to correct the problem". They were told that unless corrective action was taken within ten days, "legal action would be pursued". On October 26, 1992, a second letter was sent to the Forresters by Stoudenmire advising them that he continued to receive complaints, that the repairs may have been done in "an illegal manner", and that they had "5 days from receipt of this notice to contact (him) for an inspection." In November 1992, Carl Forrester made certain "repairs", but they were not of the type required under the permit. Instead, he installed a french drain system, consisting of a 55-gallon drum, an electric pump and a drain pipe, which simply conveyed stormwater runoff and effluent from his back yard to a percolation system in his front yard. Bailey says that, as a result of these "repairs", she can now smell the sewage odor emanating from the front yard. Forrester also placed lime on the soggy area and sprayed the same area with a chemical. On November 26, 1992, HRS issued another warning letter to the Forresters stating that it was "imperative" that they "cooperate and respond immediately" due to continued complaints by Bailey. Stoudenmire also returned to the site and once again observed insects and "mushy ground", caused by a combination of effluent and stormwater, and could smell a raw sewage odor in an area which straddled the Forrester-Bailey property line. These conditions were the same as those previously observed on prior inspections, were indicative of a failed sewage disposal system, and constituted a sanitary nuisance. There is no evidence that the conditions had been corrected as of the date of hearing. During this same period of time, Susan Lewis, who lives directly behind the Forresters, occasionally smelled a raw sewage odor, especially in the evening, coming from the Forresters' back yard. When she spoke with Carl Forrester about the odor, he told her that he was aware of the problem, had "no doubt" there was sewage "going to" the Bailey property, but denied it was from his systems. However, he also told her he intended to correct the problem. Testimony by two other neighbors established that they do not smell any foul odors coming from the Forrester property but that when climatic conditions are just right, they can smell an odor from the nearby sod farm. However, it is found that the odor smelled by Stoudenmire, Bailey and Lewis comes from the Forresters' faulty drainfields and is different from that occasionally caused by the sod farm. Respondents do not want to incur the cost of disconnecting their two existing systems and installing an unsightly mound system, which would cost almost $3,000.00. In addition, Carl Forrester says that the trucks and equipment used to install a mound system would cause another $2,000.00 in driveway and landscape damage. Because of this, Forrester contends he will sell his home before installing a mound system. Forrester also blamed the newly added fill on Bailey's lot, which disrupted the natural flow of water, for causing the standing water on his property. However, there was no evidence that this condition caused the drainfields to operate in a faulty manner. Forrester also said four septic tank firms found his systems to be in compliance with HRS rules. But this testimony is hearsay in nature and cannot be used to make a finding in his favor. Finally, he blamed part of the odor on a rotting gum tree stump in his back yard which eventually dissipated. However, this contention is not accepted as being credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a $1,000 civil penalty upon respondents for violating Subsections 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondents should also be required to correct their failed system by installing a mound- type drainfield within thirty days from date of final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1300 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Respondents: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 13-14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 J. Gary Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, FL 32011
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance dated April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is authorized and given the jurisdiction to regulate the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, including drainfields, by septic tank contractors. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor and, as such, he was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, including the installation and repair of drainfields. On or about November 2, 1995, Petitioner issued a permit (Permit No. RP648-95) to Wilmar Rodriguez for the repair of a septic tank system at 417-421 Perry Avenue, Greenacres, Florida. The property was a triplex, which was purchased by Mr. Rodriquez in 1981. Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge as to whether any drainfields were installed or replaced on the property, prior to 1981. The Permit included the installation of a new multi- chambered septic tank, a dosing tank, a lift station, and a new drainfield. The Permit was also for a filled system and called for the drainfield to be 700 square feet. Respondent was indicated as the "agent" on the Permit. Respondent and/or his employees performed the work under the Permit. Respondent was the septic tank contractor for the repair of the septic tank system under the Permit. On November 9, 1995, the construction of the septic tank system was approved by one of Petitioner's inspectors, who was an Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner's inspectors are not present during the entire construction or repair of a septic tank system or drainfield. Usually, inspections are made after the completion of the construction or repair of the septic tank system. Additionally, the inspection of a drainfield is usually performed after the rock has been placed on top of the drainfield. On February 2, 1996, the same inspector performed the inspection after the completion of the construction of the septic tank system, including after the placing of the rock on top of the drainfield. Even though the Permit reflects a filled system, the filled/mound system section on the inspection sheet was crossed out. The inspector considered the system to be a standard system, not a filled or mound system, and, therefore, inspected it as a standard system. In inspecting a drainfield, the inspection by an inspector includes checking to ensure that a drainfield has 42 inches of clean soil below the drainfield. An inspector uses an instrument that bores down through the rock and brings up a sample of the soil, which is referred to as augering. Augering is randomly performed at two locations. For the instant case, the inspector performed the augering in two random locations of the drainfield, which were in the area of the middle top and the middle bottom. The samples failed to reveal anything suspect; they were clean. On February 2, 1996, the inspector issued a final approval for the septic tank system. Final approval included the disposal of "spoil" and the covering of the septic tank system with "acceptable soil". The inspector mistakenly inspected the system as a standard system. He should have inspected the system as a filled system.1 After the repair and installation of the septic tank system by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez continued to have problems with the septic tank system. He contacted Respondent three or four times regarding problems with the system, but the problems persisted. Each time, Respondent was paid by Mr. Rodriguez. Sewage water was flowing into the street where the property was located and backing-up into the inside of the triplex. Having gotten no relief from Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez decided to contact someone else to correct the problem. Mr. Rodriguez contacted Richard Gillikin, who was a registered septic tank contractor. On October 14, 1999, a construction permit was issued to Mr. Rodriguez for the repair of the septic tank system. Mr. Gillikin was indicated as the agent. Mr. Gillikin visited the property site of the triplex and reviewed the problem. He determined that the drainfield was not properly functioning, but he did not know the cause of the malfunctioning. With the assistance of Petitioner's inspectors, Mr. Gillikin and Mr. Rodriguez attempted to determine the best method to deal with the problem. After eliminating options, Mr. Rodriguez decided to replace the drainfield. To replace the drainfield, Mr. Gillikin began excavating. He began removing the soil cover and the rock layer of the drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also wanted to know how deep he had to dig to find good soil. After digging for that purpose and for 10 to 12 inches, he discovered a drainfield below Respondent's drainfield. The drainfield that Mr. Gillikin discovered was a rock bed 12 inches thick in which pipes were located and, as indicated, 10 to 12 inches below Respondent's drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also dug a hole two to three feet deep, pumped the water out of the hole, and saw the old drainfield. Mr. Gillikin determined that the old drainfield extended the full length of Respondent's drainfield. As a result of Mr. Gillikin's determining that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield, both drainfields had to be removed and the expense of a new drainfield increased. Leon Barnes, an Environmental Specialist II for Petitioner, who was also certified in the septic tank program, viewed the drainfield site. He determined that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield and that, therefore, Respondent had not removed the old drainfield. On or about November 6, 1999, Mr. Barnes' supervisor, Jim Carter, and co-worker, Russell Weaver, who is an Engineer, also visited the drainfield site. Mr. Weaver determined that the old drainfield covered a little more than 50 percent of the area under Respondent's drainfield. On November 8, 1999, a construction inspection and a final inspection of the system installed by Mr. Gillikin were performed. The system was approved. Respondent admits that a new drainfield is prohibited from being installed over an old drainfield. However, Respondent denies that he installed a new drainfield over the old drainfield on Mr. Rodriguez's property. In 1995, Respondent failed to completely remove the old drainfield before he installed the new drainfield. The soil and rocks from the old drainfield, which was not functioning, were contaminated spoil material. Because the old drainfield was not completely removed, the contaminated spoil material remained in the drainfield and was used as part of the material in the installation of the new drainfield. Leaving the contaminated spoil material in the new drainfield, prevented the sewage water from being able to percolate through the ground, which is a method of cleansing the sewage water. Without being able to percolate through the ground, the sewage water remained on the surface of the drainfield, creating a serious sanitary nuisance and health hazard. The sewage water spilled onto the street and backed-up into the triplex. Respondent was issued a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Palm Beach County Health Department, enter a final order: Affirming the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance and finding that Noel Sanfiel violated Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1995), and Rule 10D- 6.0571(4), now Rule 64E-6.015(6), and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)1, now 64E-6.022(1)(l)1, Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Seanic Corporation's application for an operating permit for a domestic wastewater treatment facility should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On January 20, 1994, Respondent Seanic Corporation submitted to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection an application to construct a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The application requested approval to construct a facility with a design capacity of 15,000 gallons per day and to discharge its treated effluent to G-III groundwater through two Class V injection wells. Although the Department had no rules with specific depth requirements for such wells, the plans that accompanied the application contemplated wells with a total depth of 90 feet below land surface, which would be cased down to a depth of 60 feet below land surface. On February 23, 1994, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested construction permit. Petitioners did not challenge the issuance of the construction permit, and the Department issued the permit on April 22, 1994, with an expiration date of five years after the issuance of the permit. On February 17, 1999, Seanic began construction of the permitted facility, including the construction of the two Class V injection wells. At the time the wells were first drilled, there were no statutes or rules regarding the appropriate depth of underground injection wells at a facility like Seanic's. Construction of the Seanic facility was completed before April 12, 1999, as reflected by the Certificate of Completion of Construction for the permitted facility. On April 21, 1999, Seanic filed with the Department its application to operate the facility. Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, became effective on June 18, 1999, approximately two months after the facility was constructed and the operating permit application was submitted. Section 5 of Chapter 99-395 defines the term "existing" to mean "permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Health as of the effective date of this act." Chapter 99-395 imposes different effluent limitations for "existing sewage facilities" than those that are applied to new facilities. For facilities that have a design capacity of less than 100,000 gallons per day, new facilities must provide treatment that will produce an effluent that contains no more, on a permitted annual basis, than the following concentrations: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/L Suspended Solids of 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen of 10 mg/L Total Phosphorus of 1 mg/L These standards are frequently referred to as the "10-10-10-1 Standard." In accordance with Section 6(4) of Chapter 99-395, "existing sewage facilities" have until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Prior to that date, "existing sewage facilities" must meet effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and must monitor their effluent for concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The Seanic facility is an "existing" facility, as that term is defined in Chapter 99-395, and, therefore, has until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Section 6(7)(a) of Chapter 99-395 requires Class V injection wells for facilities like Seanic's to be "at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by Department of Environmental Protection rule." The Department has not promulgated any rules requiring Class V injection wells to be deeper than the depth prescribed in Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida. As of January 26, 2000, the total depth of Seanic's injection wells measured 92 and 94.5 feet, respectively. On November 24, 1999, the Department entered its notice of intent to issue the operating permit applied for by Seanic and attached to the notice a "draft permit" with the conditions and effluent limitations that would be applied to the facility. In issuing the notice, the Department determined that Seanic had provided reasonable assurance that the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of applicable statutes or the Department's standards or rules. The draft permit included effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and required Seanic to monitor its effluent for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, in accordance with Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the Department's rules for existing sewage facilities. The draft permit notes that Seanic must comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard by July 1, 2010. Because Seanic's condominium development has not been completed and the wastewater treatment facility is not expected to go into operation for approximately one year, the draft permit also requires that the facility be re-inspected and re-certified immediately prior to going into operation. The Seanic facility was designed to create an effluent that is several times cleaner than required by Department rules. The facility uses an extended aeration process that is expected to reduce levels of both biological oxygen demand ("BOD") and total suspended solids ("TSS") to lower than 5 mg/L, concentrations that are 75 percent lower than the effluent limitations in the draft permit. Similar facilities in the Florida Keys have shown that they can achieve BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 5 mg/L. The Seanic facility has also been designed to provide a greater level of disinfection than required by law. While the draft permit requires only that the facility maintain a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L after fifteen minutes' contact time, the facility has been designed with larger chlorine contact tanks to provide a chlorine contact time of approximately one hour at anticipated flow rates. The facility operator can also increase residual chlorine concentrations. These facts, along with the reduced TSS levels at this facility, will provide considerably greater levels of disinfection than the law requires. Although the draft permit does not contain effluent limitations for total nitrogen or total phosphorus, the levels of these nutrients expected to be present in the Seanic facility's effluent are approximately 5 mg/L and 2-3 mg/L, respectively. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of phosphorus in the subsurface indicate that some of the phosphorus is rapidly immobilized through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. Specifically, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys report that 95 percent of the phosphorus is immobilized within a short time after entering the injection well. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of nitrates in the subsurface indicate that some nitrate migration is also retarded through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. More specifically, studies conducted with injection wells in the Florida Keys report that denitrification removes approximately 65 percent of the nitrates within a short time after the effluent enters the injection well. In addition to the chemical reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the groundwater, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys with a total depth of 90 feet and a cased depth of 60 feet have reported extremely high dilution rates by the time effluent injected into such wells would appear in surrounding surface waters. More specifically, studies using chemical and radioactive tracers have reported dilution rates on the range of seven orders of magnitude, i.e., 10 million times. After undergoing chemical reduction in the groundwater as well as extremely high dilution rates, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that would be expected to enter Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals will be infinitesimal, i.e., less than one part per trillion. Such levels would be several orders of magnitude below detection limits of currently available analytical methods. The surface waters in the artificial canals and in Captain's Cove surrounding the homes of Petitioners' members are classified by the Department as Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The permitted levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the facility's effluent (as restricted in the draft permit) are identical to the discharge limits for fecal coliform bacteria in Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The operation of Seanic's facility will not result in discharges of fecal coliform bacteria in excess of the applicable effluent limitations. Petitioners' expert witnesses agree that the facility, as designed, will comply with all of the conditions and effluent limitations in the draft permit. No Department rule or standard will be violated by this facility. The Department has not promulgated any effluent limitations or standards for viruses to be discharged to G-III groundwater or Class III surface waters that are predominantly marine. Petitioners' members use and enjoy the clear waters in their canals and in Captain's Cove. They have had the water quality tested four times a year since 1988. Captain's Cove, along with the adjacent canals, has remained a clear, oligotrophic water body with minimal algae growth. Petitioners' members fear that the introduction of viruses and other microorganisms through the facility's effluent will cause swimming in Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals to be harmful to their health. Their fear has been heightened by newspaper stories about viruses and a publicized study which erroneously claimed that Captain's Cove had high levels of harmful bacteria. Petitioner Port Antigua Property Owners Association ("PAPOA") received notice of the Department's intent to issue an operating permit to Seanic. The president discussed the permit with another resident, a microbiologist, who in turn discussed the facility with geologists and reviewed studies performed in the Florida Keys. Their serious concern over the depth of the injection wells and the possible release of viruses and bacteria harmful to the marine environment and to the public health was expressed throughout PAPOA's petition, and a copy of one of the tracer studies upon which they relied was attached to the petition. The president of Petitioner Port Antigua Townhouse Association, Inc. ("PATA"), who is also a member of PAPOA, discussed the Department's notice of intent with the president of PAPOA and the microbiologist. He also discussed the project with a member of PATA who oversees Broward County's wastewater treatment facility, which has the same effluent limitations as the Seanic facility. PATA members believed they should join with PAPOA and the Lower Matecumbe Key Association in requesting a hearing on Seanic's operating permit. PATA and others have also filed litigation in the Circuit Court against Seanic Corporation and others. That litigation is still pending. Petitioners were not able to cite any statute or rule that would be violated by the Seanic facility's discharge. They believe that since the facility is not yet operating, it should be required to adhere to the stricter effluent standards required for new facilities. They also believe that the Department should consider the harmful effects of viruses and bacteria on the marine environment and on the public health. Petitioners did not file their petitions for any improper purpose. They did not file their petitions for any frivolous purpose or to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or to increase Seanic's costs in obtaining an operating permit for its facility. They believed the language in the Department's notice of intent to issue the permit which advises substantially affected persons that they have a right to an administrative hearing and that the Department could change its preliminary agency action as an result of the administrative hearing process. They believe they are simply exercising a right that they have under the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Seanic's application for an operating permit for its domestic wastewater treatment facility but denying Seanic's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Evan Goldenberg, Esquire White & Case, LLP First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-5309 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue This case concerns the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted a permit to operate a .0075 MGD wastewater treatment facility with reclaimed water applied through spray irrigation. See Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 610, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The exceptions filed by Cordes are deficient either in lacking materiality or in failing to cite to any Support in the record. The Department cannot substitute its interpretation of the facts unless a review of the whole record shows that the findings made by the Hearing Officer are not supported by competent and Substantial evidence. See, e.g., Tuveson v. Florida Governors Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., 495 So.2d 790, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1987). A review of the record in this case shows that, with one exception, competent and substantial evidence does support each of the findings of fact to which Cordes takes exception. Exception 1 objects that contrary to the finding in paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order, Cordes submitted the information requested by the Department, on time. The exception also urges that the Department misled Cordes, because the additional information requested by the Department to complete the first application (the short form) for renewal differed from the bases ultimately relied on by the Department in denying the application. The Hearing Officer found that the Department had denied the first application for renewal because of a delay in providing the additional information. Cordes points to no evidence in support of his exception to the finding that there was a delay. The transcript of the hearing in this matter reveals that Cordes's own witness admitted that there was a delay in providing the requested information, leading to the denial of the short-form application and a request for submittal of the long-term application, instead. As for the charge that the Department misled Cordes, Exception 1 confuses the two permit proceedings. The request for information on the short-form application is irrelevant to the denial of the long-form application at issue. The alleged discrepancy between the additional information requested and the bases for ultimately denying the application is also immaterial. The Department cannot estop itself from denying an application on one ground (on which the information originally submitted with the application is adequate) merely by requesting additional information on another ground. See generally State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1981). I therefore reject all of Exception 1. Exception 2 attacks the findings in paragraphs 9-12 of the Recommended Order on pollution problems resulting from Cordes's Spray irrigation System. Cordes argues that because the Department (and a complaining neighbor) allegedly suggested that Cordes change his method of spray irrigation to a garden hose and sprinkler system, the Department should be estopped from denying the permit. The testimony on whether a Department representative suggested the use of a garden hose is conflicting. Likewise, although Cordes's engineer testified that no pollution problems had resulted from using the garden hose for Spray irrigation, the engineers from the Department testified that ponding and consequent nutrient-loading problems would result from that method and had actually been observed at the facility in question. Because competent Substantial evidence Supports the findings in paragraphs 9-12 of the Recommended Order, I will not disturb them. As for the estoppel argument, that is addressed below, in the rulings on the exceptions to conclusions of law. I therefore must reject Exception 2. I accept Exception 3, which challenges the Hearing Officer's finding in paragraphs 15-18 of the Recommended Order that Cordes' expert witness stated in the first application for permit renewal that the system had a storage capacity of three days, yet testified at the hearing that the Storage capacity was Sixteen hours. Neither the exception nor the finding, however, is material to the decision in this case, because other grounds form the basis for the decision, as explained below. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Cordes's exceptions to the conclusions of law fare no better. At the outset, I note that Cordes did not number his exceptions to the conclusions of law. I shall take them up in the order in which Cordes presented them. The first such exception to the conclusions of law conclusorily asserts that the decision in State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1981), is distinguishable but fails to identify the specific basis for distinguishing it. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 17-103.200(1) (requiring that the grounds for exceptions be bet forth with particularity). The Hearing Officer cited the Anderson case in support of his conclusion that the Department did nothing to estop it from denying the application at issue. The court in Anderson noted that estoppel will be applied only rarely to the state and only in exceptional circumstances. The court set forth the general test for finding such an estoppel, requiring (1) a representation of material fact contrary to a position asserted later by the person or entity to be estopped, (2) reasonable reliance on that representation by the person claiming the estoppel, and (3) detriment to that person as a result of relying on the representation. Id. at 398. The court specifically pointed out that the state cannot be estopped through mistaken statements of the law. Id. (citing Department of Revenue v. Hobbs, 368 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA), appeal dismissed, 378 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1979); Austin v. Austin, 350 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1978)). Even assuming (contrary to the finding of the Hearing Officer supported by competent substantial evidence) that a representative of the Department told Cordes at some point that the use of a garden hose would satisfy the legal requirements for spray irrigation as asserted by Cordes, that mistaken statement of law would provide no basis for estoppel. Moreover, the inadequate storage capacity of the system and its proximity to a potable well provide other grounds that require disapproval of the application. In any event, the complaint that the Department misled Cordes is contrary to the Hearing Officer's well-supported findings of fact. I reject this exception. Cordes then attacks the Hearing Officer's conclusion of mixed fact and law that the evidence presented by Cordes at the hearing did not overcome the showing of the problems associated with the lack of sufficient capacity of the storage system and the proximity of the irrigation field to a potable well. Cordes argues that the Department allows an exemption from the storage capacity requirement in some circumstances and implicitly granted Cordes such an exemption by approving the permit for the facility in 1983. But the record does not show that Cordes ever requested an exemption or even addressed the issue at the hearing. Moreover, the provision of exemptions by rule for applicants in general (who comply with the requirements for the exemption) does not demonstrate the adequacy of the storage system at Cordes's facility. Nor does the granting of a permit for the facility in 1983 necessarily imply that the Department granted any exemption for the facility. Rather, the Department may well have made a mistake of law in issuing the permit then without addressing the question of an exemption. On the record before me, and in light of the well-settled law as explained above, I cannot conclude that Cordes has shown any basis for estopping the Department on this issue. The complaint by Cordes that the Department never advised him that it would require a larger storage tank until he received the permit denial letter overlooks the existence of the rule requiring three days storage capacity. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 17- 610.414(2)(c). The complaint that the Department did not request additional information on this point is immaterial. The information submitted with the permit application and confirmed at the hearing showed clearly that the storage capacity (sixteen hours) failed to satisfy the rule, in the absence of an exemption. I reject the exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion on the adequacy of the storage capacity of the facility. Likewise without merit is' Cordes's exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the spray irrigation field is located too close to a potable well to meet the requirements of rule 17- 610.421(3) of the Florida Administrative Code. The evidence showed that the field is only 200 feet from a potable well. Cordes's complaint that the application form did not request information about the proximity of the field to potable wells but only to shallow water supply wells of any kind is immaterial. Regardless of the form of the application, an applicant must meet the requirements of the rules to show entitlement to a permit. The Department did not deny the application for lack of information but for lack of a sufficient buffer zone between the irrigation field and the potable well. The information submitted was sufficient for the Department to determine that the facility would not meet the buffer zone requirement. Without explication, Cordes quotes from a letter granting his nursing center an exemption from monitoring requirements in 1983. Cordes fails to show the relevance of that exemption from monitoring to the adequacy of the buffer zone in question, given the specific requirements of rule 17-610.421(3). I therefore reject this final exception.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law, it is, recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies the permit to operate a .0075 MGD wastewater treatment facility with reclaimed water applied by spray irrigation. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4461 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts All sentences in Paragraph 1 save the second sentence are not necessary to the resolution of the facts. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found. In Paragraph 3 the suggestion by Dr. Nayak that he does not believe that the treatment plant is polluting at present begs the question. What is incumbent upon Petitioner is a requirement that the facility meet the rules. It does not. Likewise, remarks attributable to Mr. Reining to the effect that he saw no problems at the time of his visit does not supply an adequate answer to address reasonable assurances. Paragraph 4 in discussing the opinion held by Mr. Morrissette about whether he would have permitted operation in 1983 is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the most recent application should be granted. It should not. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found except to the extent that it suggests that reasonable assurance has been given. In that respect, it is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 6 is recitation of testimony. It is not fact-finding. Paragraph 7 is unacceptable in that it does not address inclement conditions. It also fails to recognize that the present disposition of the effluent is not uniform. Paragraph 8 has been addressed by consideration of the testimony de novo. This clarified that the purposes of the final hearing was to consider the case de novo as opposed to appellate review of the agency's preliminary response to the application. Likewise, in Paragraph 9 although it would have been advantageous to have the wetted area better described in the attached map, that was clarified at hearing and has been reported in the fact-finding set forth in the Recommended Order. As to Paragraph 10 the explanation of the use of Rule 610.423, Florida Administrative Code, is set out in the fact-finding and conclusions of law in the Recommended Order and puts to question the applicant's response to the requirements in that rule. As to Paragraph 11 the reference to Rule 610.423, Florida Administrative Code, is not the critical rule that pertains to potable water wells. That requirement is announced at Rule 17-610.421(3), Florida Administrative Code. Concerning Paragraph 12 in the same way that it would have been helpful for the applicant to designate the wetted area, it would have been helpful for the [agency to remind the applicant to make that designation. That failing does not preclude consideration of those matters at hearing and that was done. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of reference to Mr. Morrissette in his lack of licensing in Florida. That lack of license does not preclude his testimony. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that suggestion by Dr. Nayak that there is an even distribution by the use of a hose is rejected. Paragraph 15 as described in the fact-finding the resort to the above- ground spray heads can be had absent problems with the sizing in the reclaimed water storage system. Paragraph 16 is addressed in the Recommended Order. Paragraph 17 is addressed in the Recommended Order as is Paragraph 18. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to fact found. The reference at Paragraph 20 to the exemption set out in Rule 17- 610.414(1), Florida Administrative Code, was not spoken to at hearing. The project does not contemplate the use of an alternative system which discharges surface water through deep wells. Paragraph 21 is contrary to facts found. The requirements in the rules are not site specific. Concerning Paragraph 22, while DER issued a permit under similar conditions in 1983 that does not preclude them refusing to issue the permit in 1988. Concerning Paragraph 23. The issuance of the permit in 1983 is seen as not being an exemption. It is seen as an oversight. Paragraph 24 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 25 is subordinate to facts found as is Paragraph 26. Paragraph 27 has been spoken to in the Recommended Order as has Paragraph 28. Concerning Paragraph 29, while the application does not indicate that the buffer zone must be drawn per se, it could be fairly inferred that the designation is contemplated by the rule which requires the establishment of the buffer zone. Concerning Paragraph 30 see discussion of Paragraph 29. Paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 32, whatever the application form may say the requirements of Rule 17-610.421, Florida Administrative Code, must be complied with. The same response pertains to Paragraph 33. The suggestion that the exemption from monitoring that was granted on September 2, 1983, relieves the applicant of the requirements of Rule 17-610.421, Florida Administrative Code, is rejected. Respondent`s Facts Paragraphs 1-27 are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that any suggestion that the applicant is limited in its proof to those matters set forth in the application is rejected. The applicant is allowed to present necessary evidence in furthering the request for permit at final hearing. Paragraph 28 is not accepted in that the evidence indicated that the soaker hose was the principle method but not the sole method of effluent distribution. In Paragraph 29 it is acknowledged that the Petitioner claims that the change in the method of distribution was at the instigation of a neighbor's complaint. It is also acknowledged that there was no reference to a written communication from the Respondent to the Petitioner concerning the use of the alternative means of distribution. The problems associated with this communication are spoken to in the Recommended Order and they would attend the suggestions made in Paragraph 31. As set forth in Paragraph 32 it is acknowledged that the employees cannot create the authority for changes. Nonetheless, they may mislead an applicant into a course of conduct in pursuing the application. Any problems of that sort associated with this project have addressed in the Recommended Order. Paragraphs 33-56 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that suggestion to the effect that the application constitutes the sole basis for considering the entitlement to permit is rejected in favor of a consideration of evidence presented at the hearing de novo. The discussion in Paragraphs 57-59 as to the nature of the potable water well is acknowledged. The exemption from monitoring in 1983 does not preclude the agency's ability to examine the issue in the 1989 application. It is found that the potable well is a deep well. In Paragraph 60, while it is acknowledged that the preliminary intent to deny was based upon an examination of the permit in association with applicable statutes and rules, the decision reached in this Recommended Order was based upon the evidence presented at hearing. That decision is not reached in an attempt to appease concerns by neighbors as alluded to in Paragraph 61. Paragraph 62 is considered to be argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven K. Hall, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Baya Harrison, Esquire 400 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., for maintaining a sanitary nuisance.2/
Findings Of Fact In 1990,6/ the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., purchased property at 8402 Lemon Road, Port Richey, Florida, for purposes of relocating his on-going food distributing business. The prior owner operated a carpet business, with approximately five employees, at the location. The Respondent had about 45-50 employees. Shortly after the Respondent started doing business at the new location, he began to have problems with the existing septic tank system. The problem seemed to relate to the increased use of the toilets in the building by the added number of the Respondent's employees. In September, 1990, an HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and observed evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface from the septic system's drain field and flowing into a stormwater retention pond on the property.7/ The Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance, and a discussion of the Respondent's alternatives ensued. The Respondent rejected the first proposed alternative of connecting to a central public sewer. The nearest connection was over 1000 feet away and would entail significant cost to the Respondent. (The cost would have been even higher if gravity flow was not possible, and it became necessary to pump to the connection point.) The Respondent chose, with HRS' permission, the next alternative of trying to solve the problem by installing a second septic tank system on the property. The second septic tank system for which the Respondent applied, and which he had built, was designed for domestic use by 15 employees. In addition, after installation of the second septic tank system, the Respondent began processing a relish pack and a salad mix on the premises. The processing method for these products required the use of a great deal of water. On or about February 7, 1991, another HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and again found evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface, this time from the new septic system's drain field, and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. The amount of water flowing into the drainfields, from a combination of the use of the toilets in the building, together with the new processing operations taking place in the building, had overtaxed the double septic tank system, and the system failed. Given the quantities of water needed to process the new products, the Respondent should have anticipated, and probably was aware of, the system failure. The Respondent was directed to fix the problem within a week or stop the processing the new products on the premises. The Respondent tried several water conservation methods in an attempt to address the problem without having to either stop processing the new products or incur the cost of connecting to the central public sewer system. He knew, or should have known, that his efforts were futile, given the quantities of water needed to process the relish pack and salad mix. HRS also referred the matter to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. DER inspected on or about February 18, 1991, and told the Respondent that he could not dispose of the industrial waste from the operation of his business in the on-premises septic system without an industrial waste disposal permit. In connection with this, DER apparently advised the Respondent that he would be required to test the water in the stormwater retention pond for certain contaminants. The Respondent was unable to understand what he needed to test for, and how, and sought assistance from DER and HRS. Although there is evidence that HRS tried to help the Respondent by referring him to certain individuals employed by the DER for answers, the Respondent did not follow HRS' guidance. In any case, the efforts would have been futile, as the Respondent did not have enough property to dispose of the industrial wastes from the operation of his business on-site using a septic tank system. On or about June 19, 1991, a neighbor complained to the Respondent about the smell of raw sewage coming from the Respondent's septic system. The Respondent did not receive his neighbor's observations kindly. The neighbor complained to HRS and the Pasco County Sheriff's office. An HRS inspection on June 20, 1991, confirmed the existence of a sanitary nuisance on the premises. Again, raw sewage was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and was flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged for another meeting with the Respondent on June 27, 1991. At the June 27, 1991, meeting, HRS required that the Respondent stop processing the relish pack and the salad mix until he could hook up to the central public sewer. It was felt that the septic tank systems might be adequate pending connection to the central public sewer if the quantities of water required for processing those products on the premises were eliminated and if other preventive measures were taken. From June 27, 1991, forward to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased relish pack and salad mix from other suppliers rather than process them on the premises at 8402 Lemon Road. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out as frequently as required (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. After learning that excessive water use at the premises was partially a result of plumbing leaks, the Respondent also had the plumbing fixed. The Respondent also immediately initiated the long process of connecting to the central public sewer. He had a meeting with the assistant county administrator for utilities service for Pasco County on July 3, 1991. They discussed alternatives for connecting the Respondent's business. Initially, the County wanted the Respondent to pay to run a sewer line over 1000 feet to the south of his property to enable the County to efficiently connect other businesses and property owners in that area. But this option would have been costly to the Respondent, and there was no guarantee that gravity flow was possible between the Respondent's property and the connection point. If not, the Respondent also would have to pay the cost of pumping to the connection point. The Respondent hired an engineer to design an alternative that would be less costly. He also sought the cooperation of his neighbors, who would be required to connect to central sewer when the Respondent did. The engineer also worked with those neighbors in designing an alternate connection. On or about September 9, 1991, another meeting was held among the Respondent and his engineer and the county's utilites construction team. As a result of this meeting, the County agreed to modify the connection route in accordance with the Respondent's proposal. The Respondent's engineer continued his work on the design of the connection. HRS inspections on or about September 11 and 25, 1991, revealed that the Respondent's septic system was failing again and that raw sewage again was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged to meet with the Respondent again on October 4, 1991, along with a Pasco County deputy sheriff and a DER industrial wastewater compliance inspector. At this meeting, the Respondent felt that the deputy sheriff was threatening to arrest him for violation of the law, and he angrily terminated the meeting and asked all of them to leave the premises. In December, 1991, the Respondent arranged a meeting with the County and his neighbors to discuss sharing the cost of the connection route the Respondent was proposing to build. The neighbors, realizing the Respondent's weak bargaining position, refused to share the Respondent's costs. At this point, the County conceded to pay the approximate $9,000 to jack and bore under the road, but the Respondent was required to pay to run a sewer line approximately 300 feet to the south and to construct a manhole on his neighbors' side of the road, as well as on his side of the road. (The second manhole would be used by the neighbors to connect their properties to the line the Respondent was building when the County required them to connect.) The total cost to the Respondent for his part of the construction of the connection to the public sewer will be approximately $24,000. On January 17, 1992, the Respondent paid a $3,428 impact fee for connecting to the central public sewer, based on projected water use. On January 23, 1992, the Respondent applied for a force main interconnect permit. At the time of the final hearing, the jack and bore and the construction of the new sewer line connecting the Respondent's property to the central sewer were about to begin. The evidence indicates that, once HRS made it clear to the Respondent on or about June 27, 1991, that connection to the central public sewer was the Respondent's only remaining option, the Respondent moved with reasonable dispatch. The time it took to arrange to be connected to the public sewer was within normal ranges, and there is no evidence that the Respondent did anything to cause unnecessary delays. (Delays, if any, were caused by the need for the Respondent's engineer to work with and get cooperation from the Respondent's neighbors, who were not as anxious as the Respondent to have the new sewer line built.) There also is no evidence that the Respondent processed relish pack or salad mix on the premises after June 27, 1991. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out frequently (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. The evidence also indicates that, after June 27, 1991, all concerned were hopeful that the measures the Respondent was taking would prevent, or at least minimize, septic system failures pending connection to the public sewer. After June 27, 1991, HRS presented direct evidence of septic tank system failures only on two occasions in September, 1991. The evidence is that, after becoming aware of the system failures in September, 1991, HRS sought the imposition of a fine against the Respondent. The evidence suggests two other important motivating reasons for HRS' action: first, not being aware of the actions the Respondent took between June 27 and September, 1991, to connect to the central sewer, HRS mistakenly believed that the Respondent was ignoring its instructions; and, second, HRS mistook the Respondent's angry outburst at the meeting at the Respondent's place of business in September, 1991, when he felt he was being threatened with arrest for violation of the law, as being evidence that the Respondent was not genuine in his apparent concern and efforts to respond to HRS' guidance and instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order fining the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of April, 1992.
