STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE

OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF PERSON 00 EHR 1016

ELIZABETH H. RIGGS, )

Petitioner, )

) RECOMMENDED DECISION

v. )

)

PERSON COUNTY )

HEALTH DEPARTMENT )

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH )

PROGRAM, )

Respondent )

A Contested Case Hearing was heard in this matter on April 17, 2001, in Roxboro, North Carolina, before the Honorable Beecher R. Gray, Administrative Law Judge. Attorney Ronnie P. King represented the Petitioner, Elizabeth H. Riggs. Assistant Attorney General Judith Tillman represented the Respondent Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

ISSUE

Did the Respondent properly deny the Petitioner’s application for an improvement permit for installation of a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system?

Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the exhibits admitted and all other relevant material, the undersigned makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties stipulated on the record that notice of hearing was proper.

2. Elizabeth H. Riggs (hereinafter “Petitioner”) is the owner of a lot in Person County, N.C., designated as lot No. 13 in Rock Point subdivision. Mrs. Riggs purchased the lot in February 1999.

3. The Petitioner, through her husband, Gregory D. Riggs, applied for an improvement permit on June 8, 2000, for the Person County site. The Petitioner wanted a permit for the installation of a conventional or modified conventional ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system.

4. Pursuant to the Petitioner’s application, Mike Cash, an environmental health specialist with the Person County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health, first evaluated the Petitioner’s site on June 8, 2000. Mr. Cash evaluated the site in accordance with the North Carolina laws, specifically North Carolina General Statute § 130A-333 et seq., and the Commission of Health rules governing sewage treatment and disposal, specifically Title 15A, Subchapter 18A, of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Section .1900 and following.

5. 15A NCAC 18A .1947 states:

All of the criteria in Rules .1940 through .1946 of this Section shall be determined to be SUITABLE, PROVISIONALLY SUITABLE, or UNSUITABLE, as indicated. If all criteria are classified the same, that classification will prevail. Where there is a variation in classification of the several criteria, the most limiting uncorrectable characteristics shall be used to determine the overall site classification.

6. To evaluate the soils, Mr. Cash made three documented auger borings and evaluated the soil from the borings. He found unsuitable topography and landscape position pursuant to rule .1940; unsuitable soil depth to saprolite pursuant to rule .1943; and insufficient available space for the installation of a ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal system and for a repair area pursuant to rule .1945.

7. Mr. Cash made a second visit to the site on June 16, 2000, accompanied by Person County Environmental Health Supervisor Janet Clayton. Realtor Clyde Kelly met Mr. Cash and Mrs. Clayton at the site on this occasion. On June 16, 2000, Mr. Cash and Mrs. Clayton did two more auger borings and found soils with the same characteristics as those described in Paragraph No. 6 of this Recommended Decision.

8. Mr. Cash and Mrs. Clayton returned to lot No. 13, Oak Point subdivision, on June 20, 2000. Also present during that visit were the Petitioner’s husband, Gregory D. Riggs; Fred Smith, the regional soil scientist for the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources; and Realtor Clyde Kelly. On this occasion, a backhoe dug two pits for evaluation by Mr. Smith. The pits revealed a shallow depth of saprolite to parent rock material. Mr. Smith examined the soils in the pits not only for a conventional or modified conventional system but also for an alternative system pursuant to 15A NCAC 18A .1956. Mr. Smith concluded and explained to all present that the soil characteristics were unsuitable for any ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal option.

9. In a letter dated June 21, 2000, Mr. Cash notified the Petitioner in writing that lot No. 13, Rock Point subdivision, is unsuitable for a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system and notified him of his appeal rights.

10. The Petitioner timely filed a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing.

11. At hearing, the Petitioner presented as an exhibit an improvement permit written for Lot 13, Rock Point subdivision, in 1988 by environmental health specialist Randy Barnett, who is now retired. The permit was dated August 29, 1988, and stated on its face that it would become void after three years.

12. Mr. Barnett testified on behalf of the Petitioner that he had evaluated the soils of Lot 13, Rock Point subdivision, and found them to be suitable for a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system.

13. Mr. Barnett had no recollection of whether he filled out a soils evaluation sheet that would indicate whether he did any soil borings; how many borings he took, if any; and how he came to the conclusion that the soils on Lot 13, Rock Point subdivision, were suitable for a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system.

14. The Petitioner offered no documentation to support Mr. Barnett’s conclusion that the soils on Lot 13, Rock Point subdivision, were suitable for a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system.

15. The Petitioner also presented the testimony of Mr. Jimmy Clayton, who was Mr. Barnett’s supervisor at the time Mr. Barnett wrote the improvement permit dated August 29, 1988.

16. r. Clayton had no recollection of whether he did any soil borings on Lot 13 in Rock Point subdivision.

17. he Petitioner presented no expert witnesses to testify about the soils on Lot 13 in Rock Point subdivision.

18. At hearing the Respondent presented the testimony of Mr. Cash, Mrs. Clayton and Mr. Smith. Mrs. Clayton was qualified as an expert in soils and their evaluation for ground-absorption waste disposal and treatment systems. Mr. Smith was qualified as an expert in soils and their evaluation for ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal systems, in modified and alternative waste treatment systems, in soil science physics and in the laws and rules governing sewage treatment and disposal systems.

19. Mr. Cash, Mrs. Clayton and Mr. Smith testified that, based on their evaluations, the Petitioner’s site was unsuitable for the installation of a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system. Mr. Cash cited rules 15A NCAC 18A .1940, .1943 and .1945. Mrs. Clayton cited rules .1940 and .1943. Mr. Smith cited rules .1940, .1943, .1945 and .1956.

20. r. Smith testified that he carefully examined the soils in backhoe pits pursuant to 15A NCAC 18A .1956(6) to determine if the saprolite on the site would accommodate any kind of alternative on-site waste treatment and disposal system. He concluded that it would not.

21. r. Cash, Mrs. Clayton and Mr. Smith testified that, in their opinion, a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system installed on Petitioner’s site would fail and would pose the threat of groundwater contamination, surface eruptions of untreated sewage that could contaminate surface waters, and health risks for people.

22. he Respondent entered as Respondent’s exhibits Nos. 2 and 7 the soils evaluations sheets prepared by Mr. Cash and Mr. Smith respectively for Lot 13 in Rock Point subdivision. The two documents together show notes on six separate soil borings and show that all six borings indicated that the lot’s soils are unsuitable for a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A preponderance of substantial evidence introduced at hearing supports a conclusion that the Respondent properly classified the Petitioner’s site, Lot 13, Rock Point subdivision, in Person County, as unsuitable for an on-site ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system pursuant to the North Carolina laws and the Commission of Health Services rules governing on-site waste treatment and disposal.

2. preponderance of substantial evidence supports a conclusion that the Respondent properly determined the site is unsuitable for a conventional or modified conventional system with respect to unsuitable topography and landscape position pursuant to rule .1940; unsuitable soil depth to saprolite pursuant to rule .1943; and insufficient available space for the installation of a ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal system and for a repair area pursuant to rule .1945. Likewise, a preponderance of substantial evidence supports a conclusion that the site is unsuitable for an alternative system pursuant to rule .1956(6).

3. The Respondent’s decision to deny the Petitioner’s application for a permit for installation of a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system was made pursuant to proper procedure and was not arbitrary and capricious.

RECOMMENDED DECISION

The Respondent’s decision to classify the Petitioner’s site as unsuitable and to deny the Petitioner’s application for an improvement permit for a ground-absorption waste treatment and disposal system should be affirmed.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714, in accordance with N.C.G.S. 150B(36)(b).

NOTICE

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this recommended decision and to present written arguments to those in the agency that will make the final decision. N.C.G.S. 150B-36(a).

The agency is required by N.C.G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to furnish a copy to the parties’ attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

This the 18th day of May, 2001.

_________________________________

Beecher R. Gray

Administrative Law Judge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download