The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nemi, Inc., should pay a $500.00 administrative fine for maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution (Count I); whether it should pay an administrative fine of $9,500.00 for failing to submit a completed Site Assessment Report (SAR) within 270 days of discovery of the discharge of chemical solvents (Count II); whether it should pay investigative costs and expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 incurred by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department) (Count III); and whether it should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on January 23, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is a for-profit corporation registered to do business in the State. Respondent's president and registered agent is Neil Schuberg, who represented the corporation at hearing. Respondent is the owner of a 1.1-acre parcel of real property located at 6801 Northwest 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The property is situated in what is known as the Gateway Industrial Center just south of the City of Pompano Beach and midway between the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95. The parcel is rectangular shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide by 180 feet long. The property is further identified by the Broward County Property Appraiser as Parcel Identification Number 494209050040. A one-story warehouse and parking lot are located on the property, which is currently leased by Respondent to a testing laboratory. The evidence shows that for at least since 1981 David R. Ligh owned the property until his death. After he died, his widow, Elsie M. Ligh, sold the property in 1994 to Clayton John Pierce subject to a mortgage in the amount of $167,640.00. Mr. Pierce began operating a business on the premises known as Combined Roof Services, Inc. In 1995, Mr. Pierce decided to sell the property. A potential buyer, S & S Propeller Company, retained the services of Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an environmental site assessment for the purpose of "determining the suitability of property for ownership by [S & S Propeller Company]." When it first inspected the site in July 1995, Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., discovered three thirty-five gallon drums and a twenty-gallon black plastic tub, all labeled "hazardous waste" and reflecting that they had contained tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene) waste. This is a chemical solvent that is typically used by dry cleaning establishments. The labels carried the name and "EPA ID number" of Family Dry Cleaners located at 6804 Stirling Road, Davie, Florida, an address which appears to be around ten to twelve miles south of the subject property. The three drums were lying on their sides on the northern end of an asphalt parking area beneath overgrown Brazilian pepper trees and were empty; the empty twenty-gallon tub was located inside the building on the property. Soil borings on the property performed by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene at 10,613 parts per billion, which exceed allowable standards. Tetrachloroethene and its breakdown products are a solid waste, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) dated August 13, 1995, was prepared by the consulting firm and sets forth in detail the results of its inspection. See Department Exhibit 2. The sale was never consummated. Later that year, Mr. Pierce engaged the same consulting firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property. That assessment revealed concentrations in groundwater ranging from 8,840 parts per billion to 173,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethene, which exceed the State Clean Soil Criteria and State Maximum Contaminant Levels. The report, issued on October 13, 1995, was received in evidence as Department Exhibit 3. On October 30, 1995, a Mr. Pivnick, an attorney with the firm of Dombroff & Gilmore, P.A., which represented Mr. Pierce, notified the Department by letter that the empty drums and tub had been discovered on the property. The letter also attached a copy of the Phase I ESA. Mr. Pivnick was instructed by the Department to contact the local police department to report the incident as well as the state warning system for reporting discharges to the environment. Also, the Department contacted other local agencies and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In October 1995, Mr. Pierce vacated the premises and ceased operating Combined Roof Services, Inc. In January 1996, he began leasing the property to Sun Valley Industries, also a roofing repair business, until that firm vacated the premises in December 1997. With the use of grant monies, the Department engaged the services of International Technology Corporation to prepare a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) for the property. That report was issued on February 13, 1997. See Department Exhibit The PIR recommended that additional monitoring of the site (through shallow monitoring wells, soil samples, groundwater samples, and groundwater flow direction) be made to quantify the presence of chlorinated solvents. Again with the use of grant monies, in 1997 the Department engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., to prepare a Site Inspection Report (Report) for the subject property. The Report was issued in March 1998. See Department Exhibit 5. Excessive tetrachloroethene, Cis-1, 2- dichloroethene, and trichloroethylene were detected in ground water samples, while tetrachloroethene was detected in all seven soil samples. On April 2, 1998, Ms. Ligh assigned the mortgage on the property to Nemi, Inc., for around $100,000.00. Mr. Schuberg explained that he was able to purchase it at a discount because Mr. Pierce had ceased making payments on the mortgage and had warned Ms. Ligh that if she foreclosed on the mortgage, she would be responsible for cleanup costs on the property exceeding a million dollars. While Mr. Schuberg acknowledged that he was aware of a contamination problem on the property, he says the mortgage was purchased as an investment, and he never thought he would actually acquire the property because he believed Mr. Pierce would continue to make the mortgage payments. After failing to make payments on the mortgage, on September 21, 1999, Mr. Pierce executed a Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in favor of Nemi, Inc. Based on conversations with Mr. Pierce at that time, Mr. Schuberg says he was under the impression that the spill was much smaller than it actually was, and that it would be cleaned up by the Department. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg characterized Mr. Pierce as "a hustler and a liar." After Mr. Pivnick's report of contamination was received, the Department, along with the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection, initiated an investigation (probably in late 1995 or early 1996) in an attempt to verify the source of the contamination. Because Family Dry Cleaners "was on the top of [its] list," the Department first sought to determine whether that firm had actually deposited the drums and tub on the subject property. It learned that in 1994, or a year before the contamination was reported to the Department, Family Dry Cleaners had been evicted by its landlord, Lincoln Park. According to the Department, this "led to a dead- end" as far as Family Dry Cleaners was concerned. However, that business had been replaced by another tenant, Liberty Dry Cleaners. The Department then attempted to ascertain whether Lincoln Park or the new tenant might have been responsible for transporting the drums and tub to the subject property and dumping the waste. However, the Department was unable to confirm that either of the two had done so. Photographs of the drums and tub were made by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., when it conducted an assessment in July 1995. Because the empty drums and tub were later removed from the site by unknown persons, the Department was only able to review the photographs when it conducted its investigation. Photographs of the drums indicated that they were larger than the twenty-gallon drums normally used by a dry cleaning establishment, and the labels on the drums were not perforated or dot matrix, which are more typical of those used by dry cleaners. For this reason, and because the empty tub was found inside the building on the property, the Department attempted to determine if Mr. Pierce had purchased the contaminants for use in his operations; it was not able to confirm this fact. The Department also contacted local law enforcement officials to see whether a criminal investigation could be launched. As noted above, however, the drums and tub had been removed by unknown persons while Mr. Pierce still had possession of the property and there was no forensic evidence for law enforcement officials to examine. The result of the investigation was that the Department was unable to determine who deposited the drums on the site or the exact location where the contents were first dumped. Although Respondent contended that the Department could have easily determined who removed the empty drums and tub from the subject property by examining the manifests of the carriers who engage in that type of business, the Department investigator did not attempt to do this since the yellow pages in the telephone directory reflected at least six pages of transporters in this type of business. Further, there is no evidence that a commercial transporter was even involved. For all of these reasons, the Department looked to the current owner of the property, Respondent, as the entity responsible for site rehabilitation since there were, and still are, contaminants leaching into the groundwater and aquifer system. Specifically, as of 2007, or twelve years after the discharge occurred, the groundwater on Respondent's property was still contaminated with tetrachloroethene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene exceeding the Department's groundwater standards. Also, the same contaminants exceeded the Department's soil cleanup target levels based on ground water criteria. Because rainfall and surface water continue to come into contact with the contaminated soil, and there is no liner or impervious cap in place, the installation is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution. On September 12, 2001, the Department sent a letter by certified mail to Respondent advising that contamination was present on the property, that there were "possible violations of law for which you may be responsible," and that a Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) must be filed within sixty days from the date of the letter. See Department Exhibit 6. Although a meeting of the parties was held on October 4, 2001, a PCA was never filed. 16. On April 27, 2006, March 12, 2007, and July 3, 2007, the Department issued Warning Letters to Respondent advising that an enforcement action would be initiated unless Respondent provided a SAR within a time certain. See Department Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. (The record is silent as to why no formal activity occurred between October 2001 and April 2006.) Exhibit 8 reflects that on November 21, 2006, "analysis results of sampling of one monitoring well were received by the Department." A meeting was later conducted by the parties on January 16, 2007, at which time Respondent agreed to "draft a suitable letter of [its] intentions with regard to conducting the required assessment and send it to the Department on or before January 31, 2007." There is no record of such a letter being sent. In August 2007, Respondent contracted with Florida Environmental Engineering, Inc., to perform a "limited site assessment report." In March 2008, that firm submitted to the Department a Preliminary Site Assessment Report (PSAR) See Department Exhibit 10. For this service, Respondent paid around $16,000.00. On March 21, 2008, the Department advised Respondent by letter that the PSAR was incomplete and that further information should be provided by April 30, 2008. See Department Exhibit 11. An Addendum to the PSAR was provided on May 5, 2008. See Department Exhibit 12. This report cost Respondent an additional $3,000.00. The PSAR indicated that contaminants (dichloroethene and trichloroethylene) in the water and soil on the property exceeded Department groundwater and soil cleanup target standards and levels. The report concluded, however, that "the discharge to the site is from an offsite source" (west of the property) and that "the property owner is no longer a responsible party." On August 27 and then again on October 22, 2008, the Department issued letters to Respondent advising that "there is not enough data to support the assumption that the discharge is offsite and the contamination is from an offsite source located west of the property." The Department reached this conclusion because, among other reasons, "[t]he contamination does not seem to be delineated towards the northern and southern portions of the site," "[t]here are no horizontal delineation wells to [the] north," the "iso contour maps provided appear to show the vertical delineation of the contamination but not horizontal delineation [of the plume]," "additional monitoring points need to be [added]," and "the onsite monitoring well, MW-2, shows a very high concentration of Perchloroethylene (PCE) at 81,000 ug/L [microgram per liter] and other contaminants, while the MW-1 does not exhibit groundwater contamination to that extent." See Department Exhibits 14 and 15. In plainer language, Respondent's report was deficient in that all contamination sources were not identified; it failed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination; and it failed to recommend a remedial action to clean up the contamination. The two letters advised that the site assessment was incomplete and that additional information described in the letters must be submitted by November 14, 2008. To date, Respondent has failed to submit the required information. According to Mr. Schuberg, to perform a study that would supply the additional information requested by the Department would cost him around $100,000.00, an amount he is unwilling to pay. More than 270 days has expired since a discharge was discovered on Respondent's property, and it has failed to submit a complete SAR, as described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-780.600(8). See also Table A, Fla. Admin. Code R. Ch. 62-780, which prescribes the specific time frame (within 270 days after the discharge is discovered) for submitting this report. The Department has incurred expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 while investigating this matter. See Department Exhibit 17. This amount is not disputed. As corrective action, the Department requests that within ninety days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent submit a complete SAR which addresses the deficiencies specified in the Department's August 27, 2008, letter. See Department Exhibit 14. To complete the SAR, additional soil and groundwater samples need to be collected to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, all source areas must be identified, and a remedial action must be developed to abate the contamination. Finally, the contaminated soil must be removed from the property so that it will no longer discharge into the groundwater. The Notice of Violation requests that upon approval of the SAR, Respondent "shall commence and complete in a timely fashion all further tasks" required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-780. These corrective actions are reasonable and are hereby approved. In calculating the penalty, Respondent has assessed a $500.00 administrative penalty for Respondent maintaining a stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution without a permit. This is based upon a violation of Section 403.121(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to not comply with a regulatory statute's requirement. Under Section 403.121(6), Florida Statutes, the Department has also assessed a $500.00 per day penalty against Respondent for failing to file a SAR for nineteen days, for a total of $9,500.00. When added to the $500.00 previously assessed, the total administrative penalty is $10,000.00, which is the maximum allowed in this type of proceeding. See § 403.121(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Throughout this process, Mr. Schuberg has contended that the responsibility for cleanup lies with the person or entity actually responsible for placing the drums and tub on the property in 1995. He says that the evidence clearly shows that Family Dry Cleaners is the responsible party. However, the Department and local authorities were never able to confirm who actually dumped the waste on the subject property. Although Mr. Schuberg says it will take "[i]n the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to clean up the site, the evidence shows that when he purchased the mortgage in 1998 and assumed ownership in 1999, he knew the property was contaminated. Mr. Schuberg further stated that because his consultant could never get "answers" from the Department, the consultant was instructed to stop work. However, Mr. Schuberg never contacted the Department to get clarification about what was required. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg also offered a lay opinion that his consultant's report filed in March 2008 proves that in 1995 the contents of the drums and tub were dumped on an offsite asphalt road adjacent to the property, surface water runoff then carried the chemical solvents onto his property, and the empty drums and tub were left in the parking lot. The Department's expert did not agree with this supposition, and there is no expert testimony to confirm the accuracy of this theory. Respondent has also contended that the property should be cleaned up with state funds. As pointed out by a Department witness, however, one problem is that the property does not meet the definition of a dry cleaner and thus cannot qualify for funds under that program. Then, too, a state-funded cleanup is a last resort which is used only after the Department has exhausted all enforcement remedies. Also, in this era of tight budgets, the Department has a finite amount of funds to use for this purpose, and is limited to cleaning up only a few sites per year. Finally, the responsible party must first acknowledge by affidavit that it lacks the necessary resources to clean up the property before the Department "may" seek cleanup funds. Respondent has not yet filed such an affidavit or admitted liability. In terms of mitigating evidence, Mr. Schuberg conceded that he has not done "a whole lot" to address the contamination problem since acquiring the property in 1999. In 2008, he did expend around $20,000.00 in having a PSAR and Addendum prepared for the Department. In all other respects, he steadfastly refuses to spend any more money on assessments or take responsibility for the cleanup since he believes that Family Dry Cleaners is the entity responsible for site rehabilitation.
Findings Of Fact B. D. Taylor, Respondent, is the owner of a wastewater treatment facility near Panama City, Florida, which serves a community of some 125-150 mobile homes at Lane Mobile Home Estates. The facility has a 24,000 gallons per day capacity to provide secondary treatment of wastewater with percolating ponds. It was first permitted in 1971 upon construction and has been in continuous operation since that time. In 1980 Respondent employed the services of a consultant to apply for a renewal of its temporary Permit to operate a wastewater treatment facility. This application stated the temporary operating permit (TOP) was needed to give Respondent time to connect to the regional wastewater treatment facility. The schedule contained in the following paragraph was submitted by Respondent at the time needed to accomplish this objective, Following inspection of the facility, a TOP was issued December 5, 1980 (Exhibit 1), and expired January 1, 1983. TOPs are issued to facilities which do not comply with the requirements for Wastewater treatment. Exhibit 1 contained a schedule of compliance to which Respondent was directed to strictly comply to stop the discharge of pollutants from the property on which the facility is located. These conditions are: Date when preliminary engineering to tie into regional will be complete and notification to DER. July 1, 1981; Date when engineering to tie into regional system will be complete and notification to DER - June 1, 1982; Date construction application will be submitted to phase out present facility - March 1, 1982; Date construction will commence - June 1, 1982; Date construction is to be complete and so certified - October 1, 1982; and Date that wastewater effluent disposal system will be certified "in compliance" to permit - January 1, 1903. None of these conditions or schedules has been met by Respondent. The regional wastewater treatment facility was completed in 1982 and Respondent could have connected to this system in the summer of 1982. This wastewater treatment facility is a potential source of pollution. The holding ponds are bordered by a ditch which is connected to Game Farm Greek, which is classified as Class III waters. The size of Game Farm Creek is such that any discharge of pollution to this body of water would reduce its classification below Class III. On several occasions in the past there have been breaks in the berm surrounding the holding ponds which allow the wastewater in the holding ponds to flow into the ditch and into Game Farm Creek. Even without a break in the berm, wastewater from these holding ponds will enter Game Farm Creek either by percolation or overflow of the holding ponds caused by the inability of the soil to absorb the effluent. On January 28, 1983, this facility was inspected and the results of the inspection were discussed with the operators of the facility. The plant was again inspected on February 8 and February 18, 1983. These inspections disclosed solids were not settling out of the wastewater in the settling tanks; inadequate chlorination of the wastewater was being obtained in the chlorination tanks; samples taken from various points in the system, the ditch along side the holding tanks and in Game Farm Creek, disclosed excess fecal coliform counts; and that very poor treatment was being afforded the wastewater received at the plant as evidence by high levels of total Kejhdal nitrogen and ammonia, high levels of phosphates, high biochemical oxygen demand, and low levels of nitrates and nitrites. In July, 1983, in response to a complaint about odors emanating from the plant, the facility was again inspected. This inspector found the aeration tanks anaerobic, effluent had a strong septic odor, the clarifier was cloudy, the chlorine feeder was empty, no chlorine residual in contact tank, final effluent was cloudy, both ponds were covered with duckweed and small pond was discharging in the roadside ditch (Exhibit 14) Expenses to Petitioner resulting from the inspections intended to bring Respondent in compliance with the requirements for wastewater treatment facilities are $280.32 (Exhibit 9)
The Issue The issue is whether Tir-na-n'og, Inc.'s application for renewal of an operating permit for the operation of a residuals management facility in Okeechobee County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 2, 2000, Respondent, Tir-na-n’og, Inc. (applicant), through its owner and operator, John G. Abel (Abel), made application with Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), to renew its domestic wastewater facility operating permit FLA016637 for a Residuals Management Facility (RMF). Although the existing permit’s expiration date was November 8, 2000, the application was filed at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the existing permit, and therefore the permit remains effective pending the outcome of this proceeding. Petitioners, Mark Hair (Hair), James and Brenda Burnsed (the Burnseds), and Jerry R. Holland (Holland), who all own property adjacent to or near the applicant's property, have challenged the renewal of the permit on the ground that the applicant is violating various statutes and administrative rules. It is fair to infer that an acrimonious relationship exists between Abel and his neighbors, including Petitioners, who have filed numerous telephonic and written complaints against Abel with the Department over the years. A Department witness asserted, however, that all "public" complaints were "unfounded." The facility is privately owned by Abel and is located on a 247-acre tract of land north of State Road 724 and just west of U.S. Highway 441 near Fort Drum in the northeastern portion of unincorporated Okeechobee County. Besides operating a RMF, Abel also uses the land as pasture to raise 150 head of cattle and award-winning horses, and to grow Callie Grass to make hay. Abel currently operates a 59,000 gallon-per-day lime stabilization facility (the RMF) for sludge, septage, and domestic food service wastes. Treatment of residuals consists of alkaline stabilization for 2.0 hours at a pH of 12 or higher followed by maintenance of a pH of 11.5 or higher for 22 additional hours. Treatment of septage consists of alkaline stabilization for 2.0 hours at a pH of 12 or higher or a pH of 12.5 for a minimum of 30 minutes. The pH is maintained at or above 11 until the septage is land applied, but is less than 12.5 at the time of land application. The RMF is a Type III facility consisting of one 1,250 gallon receiving/screening tank; one 1,250 gallon lime slurry mixing tank; nine 5,000 gallon stabilization tanks; two 6,500 gallon stabilization tanks; two 5,000 gallon emergency storage tanks; two blowers; one lime slurry pump; one irrigation transfer pump; and one tank truck loading pump. Under the proposed permit, flow will be measured in equivalent dry tons/year with a maximum of 242 dry tons/year. All physical components of the facility are in good working condition, are not leaking, and operate as intended. The engineering review concluded that there are no corrective actions required, no outstanding compliance issues, and the facility has no noted problems or deficiencies. The Department’s review concluded that there are no outstanding compliance issues or enforcement actions involving the facility. After treatment, the stabilized residuals are land spread on-site on Abel's property (the ranch) and an adjoining property of unknown size to the southeast known as the Fox property under Department-approved Agricultural Use Plans. Although the Fox property was sold to a third party sometime in 2001, Abel has represented that he has an oral agreement with the new owner to continue to use the land. Any changes in new, modified, or expanded land application sites call for a new or revised Agricultural Use Plan for the site that will be incorporated into the proposed permit as a minor permit revision. Treated, stabilized residuals from other RMF facilities are also land-spread at the site as described in the Agricultural Use Plan and the cumulative loading annual reports submitted to the DEP. Specific Condition II.33 requires the applicant to maintain records of application zones and application rates and to make these records available for inspection. Specific Condition II.34 requires the permittee to submit an annual summary of residuals application activity, including if more than one facility applies residuals to the same application zones. The pending application is for renewal of a permit issued in 1995, prior to the effective date of extensive amendments to Chapter 62-640, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the regulation of domestic wastewater residuals. The proposed permit contains updated reporting requirements and forms more particularly suited to the day-to-day operations of an RMF. Specific Condition I.A.3. of the proposed permit requires that incoming loads to the RMF be reported on Residuals Stabilization Reports or Septage Stabilization Reports and that incoming load manifests be maintained on-site and be readily available for Department inspection. These reports are to be submitted to the Department on a monthly basis as specified in Specific Condition I.A.9. Under the 1995 permit, the applicant is required to submit monthly reports on Discharge Monitoring Report forms (DMRs) to which is attached the DEP Form 62-640.900(3). That form is a Standard Domestic Wastewater Residuals Record Keeping Form and shows incoming load manifests and daily processing reports for the residuals and septage accepted at the RMF for treatment. Specific Condition II.18 of the 1995 permit requires the applicant to maintain records and have them available for inspection. Among other things, the records must include the amount of residuals applied or delivered. The applicant currently maintains these records on-site, and the information is provided to the Department as part of the annual summaries required under Specific Condition II.18. Rule 62-640.700(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that a minimum unsaturated soil depth of 2 feet above the water table level is required at the time the residuals are applied to the soil. The Agricultural Use Plan and the rule require that if the seasonal high ground water level will be within 2 feet of the surface or is undetermined, the permittee shall determine the groundwater level in one or more representative locations in each application zone prior to the application of residuals. When residuals cannot be applied due to the constraints of the rule, they must be stored in holding tanks at the plant. Under the 1995 permit the applicant must record water table levels at the time of application and cannot land- apply the residuals in a particular area if the unsaturated soil depth is less than 2 feet. To ensure compliance with the above rule, the applicant maintains 6 monitoring wells on-site in each application zone and near the RMF in order to check water table levels prior to spreading residuals in those areas. In addition, Abel has agreed to install 2 or more new monitoring wells "under lock and key" to be monitored exclusively by the Department. If the permit is renewed, such an agreement should be incorporated into the conditions. At the present time, the applicant operates on a rotation schedule based on ability to land-apply residuals, grow pasture grass, and allow the livestock to graze in a certain area after residuals have been applied in accordance with the applicable Department rules and the 1995 permit. To avoid runoff or erosion during rain events, which is proscribed by Rule 62-640.700(7), Florida Administrative Code, the land-spread residuals do not sit on top of the soil. Rather, they are disked into the soil after application using a mobile, self-retrieving, high-rate Rainbow irrigation system. The RMF facility uses lime stabilization to treat liquid residuals or septage for the purpose of meeting the pathogen (disease-causing organisms) and vector attraction (attraction of flies) reduction requirements of Rule 62- 640.600, Florida Administrative Code. These reduction requirements are met at the facility to the Class B level for use on restricted public access areas. The ranch is privately owned property and does not have unrestricted public access. Between 1997 and 1999, the Burnseds purchased 210 acres of land located immediately south of, and adjacent to, the ranch and the Fox property. Also to the south of the ranch and immediately adjacent to the west of the Burnsed property are 80 acres of land on which Roto-Rooter once spread residuals. After the Burnseds filed a complaint, Roto-Rooter ceased using the property for that purpose. The Burnseds desire to build a home on their land but are understandably reluctant to do so at this time given the nature of the activities on the ranch. To the north of the ranch is the Boggy Creek Branch and to the south of the Burnsed property is the Fort Drum Creek, both of which flow essentially northeast into the St. Johns River. The applicant's property varies in topography with the high point being in the northwest corner where the RMF is located and the low points being further south and southeast. Surface water generally flows south toward the Burnsed property. There is no ditch or other holding device to prevent runoff from the ranch or Fox property from going directly onto the Burnsed property during rain events. If the permit is renewed, such a device would be appropriate, given the topography of the land. The topographical map for the area shows a 65-foot contour on the ranch sloping down to a 60-foot contour on the Burnsed property to the south and the Fort Drum Creek and sloping down to a 60-foot contour to the north at Boggy Branch Creek. To the northwest of the ranch is a gated retirement community known as Indian Hammocks. Holland is a resident of that community and lives across the street from the ranch. Hair does not live directly adjacent to the ranch, but the trucks which haul residuals to the RMF use the road in front of his house. The Burnseds contend that the permit should not be renewed under the applicable renewal criteria in Rule 62- 620.335, Florida Administrative Code. More specifically, they contend that the applicant has operated the facility in violation of permit conditions and rule-reporting requirements, in violation of the 2-foot rule, and in violation of minimum setback requirements from surface waters. In addition, Holland contends that the site is not suitable for land-application of residuals, which endangers human health and the environment, and that Abel has violated the setback requirement for adjoining properties. Finally, Hair has contended that spillage or leaks from the trucks occur on the road where his children meet their school bus. The Burnseds first contend that the applicant has consistently and systematically underreported the amount of residuals applied and delivered to the property. To this end, they introduced evidence (Exhibit B1) consisting of a compilation and comparison of information gleaned from surveillance videotapes over the period from April 6, 2000, to May 9, 2001, compared with the information reported to the Department by the applicant in its monthly DMR reports. The tapes established that between April and December 2000, at least 285 trucks entered the facility that were not reported on the DMRs. In addition, for the first 5 months of 2001, at least 185 trucks were not reported on the DMRs. When annualized, the latter number is approximately 370 trucks per year. In response to this allegation, Abel pointed out that each year he receives around 280 truckloads of treated residuals under a contract with the Hutchinson Utility Authority (Authority) which are not carried to the RMF but go directly to land application areas. None of these shipments are required to be reported on the DMRs but rather are reported in the summary reports submitted to the Department on an annual basis. This explanation would account for virtually all of the unrecorded shipments in the year 2000, assuming that all of the Authority shipments occurred during the 9- month surveillance period. More than likely, however, these shipments were staggered throughout the year. In any event, there was no evidence (such as summary annual reports for the year 2000, or a copy of the contract with the Authority) to show the dates on which the Authority made deliveries, to demonstrate that the unreported trucks were actually carrying treated residuals, as opposed to untreated residuals, or to show that the claimed number of Authority shipments was accurate. Therefore, it is found that the applicant failed to report on his DMRs around 25 percent of the incoming loads of untreated septage or residuals during the year 2000. Likewise, even after giving credit for the Authority shipments, a significant underreporting would be occurring during the year 2001. These shipments collectively involved several million gallons of septage. Besides the Authority, there are 11 other facilities in the area which "might" transport treated residuals to Abel's property for land application only. There is no evidence of record, however, to show if any trucks hauling treated residuals were received from the other sources, and if so, the number. Moreover, as noted above, the annual summary reports were not made a part of this record so that those figures could be compared to the number of trucks identified in the surveillance tapes. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the applicant has violated a condition of his 1995 permit, namely, that he failed to accurately report all incoming loads on his monthly DMRs. The Burnseds further contend that the applicant is in violation of the 2-foot rule regarding the unsaturated soil depth, and therefore the property is no longer suitable for land application of residuals. To support this contention, the Burnseds sited 6 monitoring wells around the western and southern perimeters of the ranch and Fox properties and introduced into evidence the results of samplings taken in September 2001. These samplings showed unsaturated soil depths in each well of less than 2 feet, and that 4 of the 6 wells had depths of less than 1 foot. As discussed in findings of fact 14-16, however, the 2-foot rule is required at the time residuals are applied to the soil. Nothing in the permit documents or Department rule requires an unsaturated soil depth at all locations at all times before a site can be used for residuals application. Petitioners Holland and Burnseds further contend that the low areas on the ranch and Fox properties where surface water exists are subject to the minimum setback requirements in the Department’s rules. In general, a 200- foot setback is required in a residuals application zone from surface waters that are classified as waters of the state. Through recent aerial photographs, Petitioners established that standing water is now found in multiple areas of the Abel and Fox properties for much of the year due to an alleviation of drought conditions that previously existed. However, these surface waters are located completely within the Abel and Fox property boundaries and have not been classified as waters of the state by the Department. Therefore, the setback requirement does not apply. The Agricultural Use Plan for the ranch establishes buffer areas where residuals are not applied. The buffer areas include any required setbacks from property boundaries and occupied buildings. While the Department witness was unable to give a precise distance for the required setbacks from property boundaries (except whatever the "rules" called for), it can be inferred that at least some minimal separation is required. As recently as 6 months before the hearing, Holland personally observed a truck spreading residuals no more than 8 feet from the property line. Other testimony supports a finding that spreading of this nature has occurred on other isolated occasions. These acts constitute a violation of the existing permit. Holland also contends that the land application of residuals at the ranch and Fox properties, over time, endangers human health and the environment. In support of this contention, he presented testimony from a physician who resides in Indian Hammocks and opined that the ranch is a public health problem and should be "eradicated" since the residuals contain numerous bacteria and viruses which can be spread to neighboring properties. He had no concrete evidence, however, to show that several illnesses in the general neighborhood were a direct result of the applicant's operation. That is to say, the evidence presented was speculative, and no direct causal connection was established between the illnesses and the existing operation. The Burnseds have further contended that Abel's RMF and land-application sites are a source of objectionable odors, in violation of Rule 62-296.320(2), Florida Administrative Code. That rule prohibits the "discharge of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor." Both Burnseds have smelled such an odor "several times each year" since purchasing their property a few years ago, especially if the winds are coming out of the west. In addition, a worker on their property became ill in July or August 2000 after smelling odors just after sludge was applied by a truck onto the nearby Fox property. The RMF facility is located near the northwest corner of the property away from the Burnsed property that is located to the south. While the Department points out that immediately adjacent to the Burnsed property is the former land-spreading site once used by Roto-Rooter, and that site was more than likely the source of any objectionable odors, Roto Rooter has ceased operations. Even so, given the fact that odors have been detected only "several times" over the past few years by the Burnseds, and appropriate chemicals are being applied in the tanks to control the odor, reasonable assurance has been given that the RMF is not in violation of the odor rule. Petitioner Hair, who lives near the Abel property, introduced photographs into evidence to demonstrate that trucks carrying residuals to the RMF either spilled or leaked materials at the intersection of U.S. Highway 441 and 325th Trail, which is the site of a school bus stop. Because his children must walk through that area to catch the school bus, Hair is concerned that his children may become ill from walking on the contaminated road. While this is a legitimate and valid health concern, and the leakage may constitute a violation of some regulation by the trucking company, it is not a ground to deny the renewal of the permit or a matter within the Department's jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of Tir- na-n'og, Inc. for renewal of its domestic wastewater facility operating permit FLA0166637. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2001, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Jonathan Jay Kirschner, Esquire Kirschner & Garland, P.A. 101 North Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34960-4403 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mark Hair 885 Northeast 336th Street Okeechobee, Florida 34792-3603 Jerry R. Holland 32801 U.S. Highway 441 North, Lot 101 Okeechobee, Florida 34792-0271 John G. Abel 24 Northeast 325th Trail Okeechobee, Florida 34792-0253
The Issue The issues presented in these cases are whether a 1987 Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties to this proceeding prohibits the issuance to Pasco County of a general permit for spray irrigation at the Embassy Hills facility on property adjacent to that owned by Marie Cook Matis, and whether discharge of wastewater into ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should be discontinued pending installation of a single media filtration system.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is charged with the regulation and enforcement of state statutes and rules governing construction and operation of wastewater treatment systems. The DEP is the successor agency to the Department of Environmental Regulation. Pasco County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pasco County owns and operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that includes the facilities at issue in this proceeding. Marie Cook Matis (Matis) owns and resides on property located on Denton Avenue adjacent to the treatment facilities at issue in this proceeding. THE SPRAY IRRIGATION ISSUE The parties to this proceeding litigated the issuance of permits for construction and operation of the Embassy Hills and Hudson wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. The County had initially planned construction of 14 water disposal ponds at the Embassy Hills facility. Some of the ponds were located adjacent to property owned by Matis. By written settlement agreement between the parties dated December 18, 1987, the construction permit cases were resolved. As a part of the resolution of the dispute over the construction permits, the County agreed to eliminate the five ponds closest to the Matis property. Paragraph 1(c) of the 1987 settlement agreement provides as follows: The County agrees to reduce the number of ponds constructed at the Embassy disposal site located on Denton Avenue from fourteen (14) to nine (9) ponds by eliminating the five (5) most easterly ponds depicted on the county's construction plans.... By Final Order dated January 21, 1988, the dispute was dismissed and the construction permits were issued in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. In 1991, the County applied for issuance of operating permits for the constructed facilities. In February 1992, the DEP proposed to issue the operation permits. Matis challenged the issuance of the permits. The cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. In 1992, the County made application for construction of the "Northwest Pasco Rapid Rate Infiltration Basins" (RRIBs) some of which were located at the site of the previously deleted eastern ponds at Denton Avenue. Late in 1992, the DEP proposed to issue the permits. Matis again challenged the issuance of the permits. The cases were again referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The pending cases were subsequently consolidated for hearing as DOAH Case no. 92-2488. Formal hearing was held in August 1993. In October 1993, a Recommended Order was entered. One of the issues addressed in the October 1993 Recommended Order was whether the 1987 settlement agreement precluded permitting and construction of the five easterly RRIBs located adjacent to the Matis property. The Hearing Officer concluded that the settlement agreement did not preclude the County from applying for licensure of the RRIBs. The Secretary of DEP rejected the Hearing Officer's conclusion, stating that the settlement agreement had been specifically incorporated into the 1988 Final Order, and that the agreement addressed the issue of ponds located adjacent to the Matis property. The Secretary's December 3, 1993, Final Order stated that the doctrine of res judicata prevented relitigation of the dispute regarding the five easterly ponds, and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented both the County and the DEP from "disclaiming the conditions set forth in the 1987 Settlement Agreement " The Secretary denied the application for construction of the RRIBs "without prejudice to the County to reapply for a construction permit providing alternative plans for relocating the five (5) percolation ponds " The County now seeks to utilize the property upon which the ponds would have been constructed as spray irrigation fields. The County asserts that the settlement agreement is silent as to any use other than percolation ponds, and that the agreement therefore does not prohibit spray irrigation fields. Matis asserts that the spray irrigation fields are prohibited by the terms of the 1987 settlement. The DEP initially declined to issue the general permit on grounds that the permit "may be inconsistent" with the terms of the 1987 settlement agreement, but in DEP's Proposed Recommended Order, DEP notes that it has now withdrawn its objection to the spray irrigation system. The effluent that would be discharged via spray irrigation is the same as that which would have been deposited into the percolation ponds. The evidence admitted into the instant hearing fails to establish that the County should be issued a general permit for the use of spray irrigation on the Denton Avenue property at the Embassy Hills wastewater plant. THE EMBASSY HILLS FILTRATION SYSTEM ISSUE Matis asserts that the single media filtration system included in the Embassy Hills construction permit has never been installed, and asserts that the discharge of water into the ponds should cease until after the permit condition has been met. Paragraph 1(b) of the 1987 settlement agreement provides as follows: The County agrees to install a single media filtration device at the Embassy Percolation Ponds located on Denton Avenue for the purpose of filtering effluent prior to disbursement to the pond system. The County further agrees that the effluent so filtered shall meet the following treatment parameters - 15 BOD, 5 TSS, and 10 nitrates . . . . In recommending approval of the operating permit applications, the Hearing Officer's 1993 Recommended Order stated that the treatment plants had been operating "without violations." Matis filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's finding related to the lack of violations, citing uncontested testimony acknowledging that the single media filtration system had not been installed. The DEP Final Order of December 1993 granted the exception and modified the Recommended Order, noting that the single media filtration device had not been installed at the Denton Avenue site. In granting the issuance of the operating permits, the proposed permits were modified to specifically include" any and all conditions, fulfilled or unfulfilled, set forth in the Settlement Agreement." Inexplicably, the single media filtration device has still not been installed at the Denton Avenue ponds. The operation of the Embassy Hills plant without installation of the single media filtration device is a violation of the construction permit, which was issued pursuant to the 1987 settlement agreement. The operation of the Embassy Hills plant without installation of the single media filtration device is a violation of the operating permit, which specifically includes the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order as follows: An operating permit for the Embassy Hills Subregional Reuse Facility should be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties at the hearing of July 7, 1999. An operating permit for the Hudson Subregional Reuse Facility should be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties at the hearing of July 7, 1999. The application for general permit to provide for spray irrigation at the Embassy Hills facility on property adjacent to that owned by Marie Cook Matis should be denied. Utilization of the Denton Avenue discharge ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should cease until such time as the County has installed the required single media filtration system. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles D. Hinton, Esquire William Deane, Esquire Deane and Hinton, P. A. Post Office Box 7473 St. Petersburg, Florida 33739-7473 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James Benjamin Harrill, Esquire Figurski and Harrill Suite 350 2435 U.S. Highway 19 Holiday, Florida 34691 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether a permit to convert previously permitted percolation ponds to a land application, reclaimed water, spray and drip irrigation system should be granted to Respondent, Destin Water Users, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The City of Destin, Florida is located on a sandy strip of land which lies between the Gulf of Mexico to the south and the Choctawhatchee Bay to the north. This strip of land generally consists of rapidly percolating soil. Importantly, the strip of land has a breakline running through it which functions similar to the Continental Divide of North America in determining the direction of flow of any water located on either side of the divide. In this case, the breakline causes water to flow either north or south depending on which side of the breakline the water is located. DWU provides water and sewer treatment to residents and businesses located in the City of Destin, Florida. In order to provide its sewer service, DWU operates a waste water treatment plant along with several wastewater percolation ponds and wastewater spray and drip irrigation systems. Sometime in 1991, DWU entered into a lease agreement with a third party in which DWU would permit the third party to construct a golf course on a thirty acre site which currently contains four of DWU's percolation ponds. The four percolation ponds, which are the subject of this proceeding are located off U.S. Highway 98 in Destin, Florida. The northern boundary of the subject site is the southern boundary of the property in which Petitioners' have an interest. After construction of the golf course, DWU plans to continue to dispose of treated wastewater at the site by using a dual irrigation system consisting of a sprinkler system for spray irrigation and a series of underground plastic pipes for slow drip irrigation. DWU desired to create a dual use for the 30 acre site in order to generate more income from the property and still be able to dispose of wastewater on the property. In order to accomplish its goal, DWU was required to obtain a permit for the planned conversion of the percolation ponds to a land application, reclaimed water, spray and drip irrigation system. Because a spray and drip irrigation system would be put into place, DWU would be required to provide additional nutrient and BOD removal before water is put on the property. DWU clearly has the capability and experience required to provide additional nutrient and BOD removal. Also because a spray and drip irrigation system would be substituted for the percolation ponds the maximum quantity of effluent to be applied to the property would be reduced to 1.58 gallons per day under the proposed permit. The location of the percolation ponds and consequently the proposed spray and drip irrigation system is a superior site for effluent disposal because of the sandy soil, high elevation relative to the property surrounding the site, and the high permeability rate of the soil. The ponds have been in existence for approximately ten years, and have operated under a permit which allows a maximum average of 1.65 million gallons of wastewater a day to be applied to the ponds' 30 acre site. Indeed, when the ponds were originally permitted approximately ten years ago all of the various factors affecting flow rates were reduced to calculations to determine the amount of effluent which could safely be placed on the percolation ponds' site to insure complete and continual compliance with Department requirements. To date, all of the effluent currently being applied to the percolation ponds meets the Department's standards when it leaves the percolation pond property and there have not been any violations of the operating permit or any other statutes, or rules for the subject percolation ponds during the history of their operation. Similarly, the design calculations for the proposed conversion to the spray and drip irrigation system on the proposed golf course show that the water quality will continue to meet the Department's standards when it leaves the property. The pond site is surrounded by eight monitoring wells. These wells measure the level of any contaminants which may seep into the groundwater and also measure any changes in groundwater levels. The monitoring wells are a requirement of the percolation ponds' permit to insure compliance, with state water quality standards and to insure that the percolation ponds are not adversely affecting any off-site property. DWU has submitted quarterly reports of the readings from these monitoring wells, as required by law, to the Department. The wells will remain in place should the property be converted to a golf course with a spray and drip irrigation wastewater disposal system. A portion of the monitoring wells which encircle the percolation ponds lie along the northern boundary of the percolation ponds, which is the southern boundary of Petitioners' property. Petitioners submitted the testimony of two lay witnesses in an attempt to establish a causal relationship between the percolation ponds and flooding in and around the percolation pond area. Petitioners' witness, Bud Sharon, testified that he saw water on property located immediately to the south of DWU's percolation ponds which he had previously owned. The water Mr. Sharon saw was a continuous stream of water running down the side of his property. The stream of water developed after the ponds had been built. However, this witness was not qualified to render any expert opinions correlating the presence of any water on his property to any activities on DWU's percolation ponds. Most importantly, the evidence showed that the ponds were not in continuous use by DWU and at times were dry while Mr. Sharon's stream was continuous. This fact alone leads to the conclusion that the stream of water Mr. Sharon testified about was caused by factors not attributable to the percolation ponds. Additionally, analysis of the water found upon this witness' property was determined to be free from any contaminants and did not pose any health risks. Finally, the evidence demonstrated that with improved storm water control throughout the general area the stream has abated. Dale Whitney was also proffered by petitioners and presented lay testimony regarding his observations of water in the vicinity of the percolation ponds. This witness testified that he saw water emanating from the berm which forms the southern boundary of the DWU percolation ponds. However, it was established during cross-examination that this witness did not know whether the DWU percolation ponds were in use at the time or when they had previously been in use. This witness also admitted under cross-examination that he was not qualified through experience, training or otherwise to opine about the source of water which he observed or whether it was in any way attributable to the percolation ponds. Additionally, the evidence showed that Mr. Whitney's observations occurred shortly after a heavy rain and during a particularly wet time of the year. In short, the water seen by Mr. Whitney more than likely was the result of storm water control in the area with rainwater percolating out of the berm. The evidence was insufficient to show that effluent from the percolation ponds was leaking through the berm. On the other hand, the empirical data from the monitoring wells surrounding the percolation ponds demonstrates that the breakline for the area is north of the percolation ponds' site and is on Petitioners' property. The groundwater at the subject site flows in a southerly direction to the Gulf of Mexico. The data from the monitoring wells also indicates that the wastewater stays in the groundwater and does not emanate to the surface and cause flooding. Similarly, there was no competent substantial evidence that the subject site caused any flooding at any time to the Petitioners' property. Indeed the historical data gathered from the percolation ponds' site demonstrates that water on that site runs away from Petitioners' property. In short, Petitioners failed to offer any plausible basis for inferring that water on the percolation ponds' site could flow uphill over the breakline and cause either flooding or raised nutrient levels on Petitioners' property. 1/ Moreover, for the past ten years during which the percolation ponds have been in existence, all effluent contaminant levels have been well within compliance with all Department rules. Moreover, Petitioners presented no substantial credible evidence, either testimonial or documentary, concerning any water sample analyses in support of their allegations regarding water borne contaminants emanating from the percolation ponds onto their property; and no substantial credible evidence in any way materially controverting the engineering information submitted by DWU in its application or the determinations made by the Department in its analyses and approval of DWU's application. Clearly, the actual performance of the percolation ponds over the past ten years establishes that the site will perform in accordance with the Department's rules should the proposed conversion be allowed. Additionally, given DWU's full compliance with all of the Department's rules relative to the performance and function of the percolation ponds over the past ten years, as well as compliance on DWU's use of its currently existing reclaimed water reuse systems and the fact that the conversion proposal meets the Department's water quality and design criteria requirements for reclaimed water use, reasonable assurances that DWU will continue to comply with all the Department's rules should the proposed conversion be allowed have been given and the permit should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing permit application number DC46-199969 to Destin Water Users, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, 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 3rd day of August, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an operating permit for an existing domestic wastewater treatment facility operating in Naples.
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1991, Respondent issued Petitioner a five- year permit to operate a 0.3 million gallon per day (GPD) domestic wastewater treatment plant known as the Rookery Bay facility in Naples. This permit, which is number DO11-187204, allowed Petitioner to operate an extended aeration plant, using chlorine for basic disinfection and disposing of the reclaimed water in two percolation ponds. The 1991 permit required Petitioner to allow Respondent access to the facility for inspections at reasonable times, notify Respondent of any violations of any permit conditions, maintain total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of effluent sample after at least 15 minutes’ contact time at maximum daily flow, maintain annual average effluent quality values for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) of not more than 20 mg/L of effluent sample with maximum effluent quality concentrations of 60 mg/L in any single effluent sample, maintain a monthly average effluent quality value for fecal coliform of not more than 200 per 100 ml of effluent sample with a maximum effluent quality value of 800 per 100 ml in any single effluent sample, notify Respondent of any discharge from the percolation pond overflows, and monitor influent loading to the facility and apply for a permit modification if the monthly average influent flows approach or exceed the design capacity of 0.3 MGD or if the facility violates treatment standards. Respondent also issued Petitioner a five-year permit to operate a 0.15 GPD domestic wastewater treatment plant at the Rookery Bay facility. This permit, which is number DO11-167093, allowed Petitioner to operate a contact stabilization process plant. On December 29, 1995, Petitioner submitted a renewal application for permit number DO11-167093. Although the permit number references the smaller tank, the renewal application requests a permitted capacity of 0.3 MGD. By Notice of Permit Denial dated February 9, 1996, Respondent denied the permit application on the ground that Petitioner could not provide reasonable assurance that it would operate the facility in compliance with state standards based on a “continued and long standing pattern of noncompliance and violation of . . . rules and standards.” Petitioner’s operation of the Rookery Bay treatment plant has been poor. Respondent has brought an enforcement action against Petitioner, which signed a consent final judgment in January 1994. The consent final judgment required Respondent to pay $4500 in civil penalties. As it applied to the Rookery Bay facility, the consent final order required Petitioner to evaluate the facility to discover the causes of past violations and modify the facility to eliminate these violations. But Petitioner has not complied with material provisions of the consent final judgment. Petitioner’s operator has been held in contempt of court several times for violations at Rookery Bay and a nearby smaller treatment facility known as Port au Prince. Petitioner has several times refused Respondent’s representatives reasonable access to the Rookery Bay facility. At least twice, Petitioner has failed to advise Respondent of equipment failures that resulted in violations of treatment standards. On January 11, 1995, Petitioner cut off the power for several hours to a lift station pump serving a nearby a condominium complex. Predictably, the sewage backed up and overflowed into the street. Petitioner failed to restore the power timely or remove the overflowed sewage. On several occasions, raw or inadequately treated sewage has leaked from the tanks at the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner has failed to eliminate this problem over the course of its five-year operating permit. On numerous occasions, Respondent’s representatives have detected violations of effluent quality. These violations have arisen inadequate detention time in the chlorine contact chamber. Consequently, the TSS and CBOD levels have repeatedly exceeded permitted standards. The parties dispute the adequacy of the capacity of the Rookery Bay facility. There is considerable evidence, including one statement in the application, that suggests that the facility’s capacity is seriously inadequate. Either the capacity of the Rookery Bay is, and has been, inadequate--in which case at least some of the violations are attributable to overcapacity operation--or, if the facility has had adequate capacity, the operational competence of Petitioner is below the minimum level necessary to provide reasonable assurance of proper operations at this facility in the future. Most likely, the Rookery Bay facility lacks adequate capacity, at least part of the year, and Petitioner lacks the minimum requisite competence to operate the facility in a responsible manner. The strongest evidence in the record suggests that the Rookery Bay facility serves, during peak season, 1500 mobile home connections and 400 apartment connections. These connections generate about 377,500 GPD of raw sewage. A slightly lower value is probable after consideration of the likely presence of recreational vehicles among the mobile home count. But this reduction, even without adjustment for dry-season infiltration and inflow, would not yield sufficient savings in raw sewage as to provide reasonable assurance that the Rookery Bay facility has adequate capacity to serve the present demand or adequate capacity to serve the demand projected over the five-year term of the permit that Petitioner seeks. Even if one were to credit Petitioner’s volume-to- capacity calculations, the results fail to constitute reasonable assurance of violation-free operation of the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner's calculations leave little if any margin for error at present demand levels, and, given Petitioner’s singularly poor operating history at this facility, these calculations provide poor assurance of compliant operation of this troubled facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s renewal application for a domestic wastewater treatment operating permit for the Rookery Bay facility. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sanford M. Martin 2500 Airport Road, Suite 315 Naples, Florida 34112-4882 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues are whether the Consent Order entered into between the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Kenneth Acre (Acre) is an appropriate settlement of the violations addressed therein and whether Acre is entitled to construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility. The Bradys assert that the Consent Order is not a reasonable exercise of DER's enforcement discretion and that the permit should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Background Acre owns and operates an animal research facility in Eustis, Florida. Acre performs research trials on dogs using a USDA approved heartworm medication sold under the brand name of Heartguard, the chemical name of which is ivermectin. Acre is not in the business of testing or manufacturing new drugs. The Consent Order To handle the waste generated by the animals at the facility, Acre initially constructed a conventional septic tank system. Prior to construction, Acre contacted the Lake County health department to inquire about permitting and was told that he did not need a permit for his facility. With that information, he continued with the project. Subsequently, DER became aware of the facility and notified Acre that a DER industrial waste permit was required and that he should cease the discharge into the septic tank until such a permit was obtained. Acre complied with DER's instructions and plugged the septic tanks. Since the time the septic tanks were plugged, the waste has been collected by Roto Rooter on a periodic basis and disposed of offsite. Acre entered into a Consent Order with DER to resolve the alleged past violation for not obtaining a permit and paid of penalty of $600 as required by DER. The Consent Order is a reasonable and appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. The Disposal System Acre has applied for a permit to construct and operate an evapotranspiration disposal system to dispose of the waste from his facility on site. The proposed system is essentially a modified septic tank system using a lined drainfield to capture and hold the liquid waste, allowing it to transpire from the grass or otherwise evaporate into the atmosphere and preventing any discharge to groundwater. The waste will be discharged to a series of modified septic tanks which will provide treatment beyond that of a traditional septic tank system and will reduce the amount of total suspended solids. The first septic tank accepts the waste and provides initial treatment through natural settling of solids. The waste then passes through a filter device and travels by gravity flow to the second septic tank. From the second tank it flows through a second filter device and into a dosing tank. The dosing tank is basically a small holding basin with a pump that disperses the waste to the drainfield in incremental amounts. The dosing tank contains several float mechanisms which monitor the level of liquid in the tank. When the water level in the dosing tank reaches a certain level, one such float mechanism turns on the pump to transport the liquid to the drainfield. The waste is then pumped from the dosing tank through a closed pipe to one of two evapotranspiration cells where it is distributed through a number of perforated pipes. The Evapotranspiration Cells The perforated pipes are situated in a gravel bed approximately 24 inches in depth. On top of the gravel bed is a clay soil mix approximately 15 inches deep. The clay soil mix absorbs the liquid waste in the gravel bed by drawing it up through the process of capillarity. Once the liquid is in the upper clay soil layer, it is evaporated. Grass is planted on top of the soil mix as an additional method for dissipation of the waste. The liquid waste is absorbed by the roots of the grass and transpired through the grass leaves. The clay soil mix in the top layer of the system is relatively impervious. The impervious nature of the soil mix along with a three percent surface slope will prevent rain water from entering the evapotranspiration cells and impacting the effective operation of the system. The entire drainfield has a double liner: one PVC plastic liner and a 6" clay layer. These two liners will ensure that no discharge to groundwater will occur from the system. System Capacity It is estimated that the Acre facility will produce approximately 520 gallons per day (GPD) of waste to be handled by the system. The drainfield is designed to handle twice the volume that will be discharged by the Acre facility and is therefore more than adequate to assimilate the waste received into the system. The drainfield is composed of two independent cells so that loading of each cell will be rotated. Once one cell receives its maximum capacity, the loading of that cell will cease in order to allow that cell to assimilate the waste through evapotranspiration. In this manner, the first cell is permitted to "rest" while the second cell receives further loading from the dosing tank. Safety Features Although the proposed disposal system is innovative in design, it incorporates several safety features which will ensure that no overflow of waste will occur. First, a float mechanism in the dosing tank is designed to trigger an alarm in the event the water level in the dosing tank gets too high. If that occurs, the alarm provides a flashing light as well as a horn which will notify the operator of a problem. Once the float reaches this warning level, the system will automatically shut down, thus preventing further waste from entering the system. Second, each evapotranspiration cell is equipped with a similar device which will automatically close off the dosing tanks and prevent further discharge into the cells in the unlikely event the system were to become too saturated to accept further loading. Finally, the double lined drainfield provides an additional safety measure which will prevent any discharge to groundwater. The numerous permit conditions requiring periodic monitoring of water quantity and quality in the system itself as well as the groundwater in the vicinity of the system provide ample assurance that the system will not pose a threat to the state's water resources. Ivermectin Although the proposed system will not discharge to groundwater, DER required the applicant to determine the amount of ivermectin in the wastestream. Ivermectin binds tightly to soil and does not dissolve in water. A sample of the wastestream from the Acre facility was collected by Bionomics Laboratory, Inc., and analyzed by Analytical Development Corporation using the analytical procedure designed by Merck scientists. The results of this analysis show that the concentration of ivermectin in the Acre wastestream ranges from .6 to 6.1 parts per trillion (ppt). The publication submitted to the Department by Acre entitled, Chapter 11, "Environmental Aspects of Ivermectin Usage in Livestock: General Considerations" by Halley, Nessel and Lu, from William C. Campbell, Ivermectin and Abamectin, documents the results of studies designed to determine whether using ivermectin in animals would result in any harmful or undesirable effects on the environment through excretion in the feces. This publication indicates that: Ivermectin is relatively immobile in soil and will not readily translocate into groundwater. Ivermectin is rapidly decomposed by sunlight and therefore will not accumulate in soil when administered to livestock. Ivermectin has no effect on earthworms at a concentration in soil of 12 parts per million (ppm). (This concentration is approximately two million times higher than that of the Acre waste stream.) Aquatic organisms such as water fleas and fish are highly sensitive to ivermectin toxicity. However, ivermectin is not toxic to the most sensitive species, the Daphnia magna, at a concentration of 0.01 parts per billion (ppb). Ivermectin concentrations in cattle feedlot runoff was less than the no-effect level of 0.01 ppb for Daphnia magna and therefore should cause no adverse environmental effects in surface or subsurface waters. The highest concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream is 6.1 ppt (or .006 ppb), which is less than the 0.01 ppb non-toxic level for the most sensitive aquatic species. Based on the concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream and the fact that ivermectin binds tightly to soil, the discharge from the Acre facility would not cause any adverse environmental impact, even if it were discharged to groundwater. Bradys' case Bradys submitted no evidence to show that the Consent Order is not an appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. They submitted no evidence that the septic tanks were improperly plugged. Brady offered no expert testimony in support of their claim that the facility had caused an adverse impact to groundwater or that the proposed system would cause any threat to groundwater quality. Bradys apparent concern about standing surface water on their property during heavy rainfalls is not relevant to this proceeding. Their concern that the lining of the drainfield could leak is unsupported by competent evidence. Bradys learned immediately prior to hearing that DER had changed its position and intended to issue the permit. Their failure to present any relevant evidence that the Consent Order was insufficient or that the proposed facility would violate any applicable DER rules or criteria and their ill- prepared participation in the hearing was in part the result of DER's late change in position. Bradys' participation in this proceeding was not shown to be frivolous.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Ratify the terms of the Consent Order as reasonable. Grant Acre construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility, subject to the special conditions set forth in DER Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 22nd day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 91-2608, 92-0958 AND 92-0959 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners, Bradys 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6 & 7(8) and 15(10). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1-5, 16, 27, 28, 31, 36-42, 44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 57-59, 61, and 62 are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 8, 10-14, 17, 19-21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 43, 53, 55, and 56 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 22-25, 45, and 50 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 34 and 60 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents, Acre and DER Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-44(1-44). Proposed findings of fact 45 and 46 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlyn H. Kowalsky, Attorney at Law Bogin, Munns & Munns 250 North Orange Avenue 11th Floor-P.O. Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802 Douglas MacLaughlin, Attorney at Law Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Martha Hunter Formella Attorney at Law FOLEY & LARDNER Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, FL 32802-2193 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The proposed site consists of some 311 acres bounded on the South by Alligator Alley (SR 84) and is approximately 6 1/2 miles East of SR 858. The existing solid waste disposal facility at the airport is exceeding the capacity of the area to absorb any additional solid waste. An approved federal grant for expansion and improvement of the Naples airport is contingent upon the cessation of further solid waste disposal at this site. The original deadline for discontinuing use of the airport disposal site of June 30, 1975 has been extended to allow the processing of the instant application. Of the numerous sites considered the one proposed herein was considered by local, state, and federal agencies to be the best overall. The proposed site meets the requirements of, and has been approved by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, the Department of Environmental Regulations, and various state health organization. The plans and specifications which have been submitted by the county and approved by the various agencies concerned called for an excavation of the site to a depth of approximately 3 feet, with the solid waste after compaction being placed in the ground and each layer thereafter placed on top and covered on a daily basis with soil. A perimeter canal will be constructed around the site to divert surface water from outside the site to prevent flooding the area. Interior canals will be installed to provide for collection of the leachate, as well as water falling on the site. The project includes construction of leachate sump ponds on the site, which will be coated to preclude the leachate from percolating into the surrounding area. An all weather access road will be provided to the site, and the only vehicles permitted on the site will be those controlled by the county and city, which would include their contractor for hauling waste. The routes for these vehicles would be such that they would not pass' over the Golden Gate Boulevard, which goes through the community of Golden Gate. At the hearing little new evidence was submitted. Intervenor appeared to take the position that its opposition to the project was based upon the fact that: (1) The site proposed could flood; (2) An impermeable barrier should be installed in all cells to preclude harmful materials from permeating the soil; and (3) Leachate from the cells could enter into the ground water table. Testimony with respect to these objections revealed: (1) The pumping system proposed is adequate to handle any flooding that may reasonably be anticipated; (2) The site is not located on a watershed that could go to a public water supply; (3) The site is some 5 or 6 miles from the nearest public water supply and not so located that surface water from the site could flow to a public water supply; (4) No place in Collier County meets the 5 foot separation provision between water table and place where waste could be dumped; The safeguards provided by the proposed plan qualifies this site for waiver of provision (4) above; (5) If an impermeable barrier was installed beneath the cells it would be ineffective in preventing surface water contamination in the event the site is flooded; (6) In the event the proposed system proves inadequate to control flooding, modifications in the then existing system could be made that would control this problem; and (7) Use of impermeable barrier below cells is but one design method to meet requirements of the various regulatory agencies.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (4COP) was filed on behalf of Joseph W. McGoldrick for property located at 2848 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG) and multiple family residential (RM-12). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on September 1, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to grant conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioners on September 15, 1987. Petitioners are surrounding property owners whose property is located within five hundred feet of the subject property. With this application, McGoldrick seeks approval for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages since he intends to convert the use of the property to a nightclub. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of several residences, including Petitioners'.
