We need to evaluate rational buffering and setback requirements to combat land-use compatibility complaints, the potential loss of MSW capacity, and increased disposal costs.

By Marc J. Rogoff, Warren Smith, Donald S. Crowell, Robert Hauser, and Virginia Harrell

Landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, and waste-to-energy plants are vitally important to society. Over the past few years, communities have invested literally tens of billions of dollars constructing such solid waste facilities in order to respond to the nation’s increasing need for disposal and recycling capacity. These facilities have been designed under the most restrictive federal, state, and local environmental regulations. Further, since these facilities have been considered by the public to be locally unacceptable land uses (LULUs) at the time of their initial siting, the land-use and zoning hearings associated with siting often have been controversial.

As the nation becomes more urbanized, sites once considered remote are now located in areas increasingly ripe for development or redevelopment. In order to site solid waste facilities, local governments have installed public works infrastructures such as roads and utilities, reducing the costs for owners of adjacent parcels. Consequently, we see lands adjacent to solid waste facilities being considered for such developments as residential communities and commercial and industrial projects. Thus, the potential opportunity for nuisance complaints against the existing solid waste facility operations has become an increasing reality in many areas of the nation. There have been some instances in recent years where public and private owners/operators of solid waste facilities have been forced to close their facilities prematurely, resulting in a loss of valuable solid waste capacity and increased costs for solid waste disposal.

What then are rational guidelines for land-use buffering requirements that would minimize potential conflicts between solid waste facilities and these new developments on nearby land parcels? During the course of researching a new solid waste ordinance for Pinellas County, FL, the authors found there is limited solid waste siting literature that addresses development or redevelopment issues related to solid waste facilities and adjacent land parcels. This article will explore the results of our literature search, as well as discuss several specific case studies of solid waste facilities that have been faced with land-use compatibility issues.

Background and History
The Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal and Resource Recovery System was established by an act of the Florida legislature in 1975. County officials envisioned a consolidated solid waste disposal system to serve the county and its 24 municipalities. At that time, solid waste disposal was being provided by several of the county’s larger municipalities (St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Largo, and Tarpon Springs) and by private companies.

While Pinellas County in 1975 was one of the most densely populated counties in the state, the area chosen for construction of the mass-burn, waste-to-energy plant, the sanitary landfill, and other attendant solid waste facilities was relatively underdeveloped. Most of the surrounding land was vacant and had been identified in the county’s comprehensive plan for light industrial and commercial use only. Paved roads and utilities had not yet been provided adjacent to the solid waste property. As a precursor of things to come, a residential retirement community of several hundred homes known as the Tamarac Mainlands was under construction, touching the southwest corner of the solid waste property.

Construction of the waste-to-energy plant began in 1980, and the initial facility of 2,100-tpd capacity and the adjacent landfill began commercial operation in 1983. During this time, over the objection of the county, the City of Pinellas Park approved the zoning for construction of another residential community of several hundred homes directly west of the active landfill.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the surrounding area, known as the Gateway, continued to develop commercially as permitted by zoning regulations and is now the home of such prominent businesses as Jabil Circuit Inc., Home Shopping Network, Danka Systems, and Raymond James Inc. As the area developed further, the only undeveloped property remaining was two parcels to the south of the solid waste property totaling more than 200 acres, with the adjacent, contiguous 130 acres known as the Sod Farm owned by the City of St. Petersburg.

While St. Petersburg had made it generally known in the late 1980s that it wanted to sell its Sod Farm property for commercial development, it was not until early 2001 that the city officially announced its intent by issuing a request for proposals (RFP). The RFP required bidders to meet minimum commercial development and jobs specifications. Upon learning of this effort, and wishing to preserve an undeveloped buffer adjacent to its future sanitary landfill, Pinellas County officials approached the city with an offer to buy the Sod Farm. This offer was rejected, even with overtures made from the highest levels of administrative and political entities. It was clear that the city intended to provide additional tax base by promoting commercial development. The county was told it could compete for purchase of the property through the RFP process.

In August 2001, with authorization of the county’s elected Board of County Commissioners, county staff submitted a bid for the Sod Farm. The county’s innovative approach included leasing the land back to the city for a nominal fee, allowing the city to develop the property for a minimum of 50 years, and keeping the tax revenues generated during this period. At the end of the 50-year period, the county would allow the city to continue with the lease or it could reclaim the property for public purposes. Even with a very competitive bid, the city awarded the project to a private developer.

Proposed Development: Sod Farm Property
The county believed an opportunity had been lost for the long-term welfare of Pinellas County’s nearly 1 million permanent residents, but with the adjacent property zoned Commercial/Light Industrial, such uses were nonetheless compatible with the solid waste facilities.

Then, in October 2003, the county became aware that the City of St. Petersburg had proposed a change to its Comprehensive Plan through the regional planning authority, known as the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC), that would allow for a mixed-use development of the Sod Farm. Over the years, this zoning concept had received favor to allow for the redevelopment of older, run-down commercial areas and to provide for a new live/work urban community environment. Under the zoning guidelines for these types of developments, a residential component was authorized that would allow a developer to provide high-density residential on up to 25% of his property, if over 100 acres, and at a density of up to 75 units per acre. If approved, the adjacent Sod Farm could potentially be the future “home” of nearly 3,000 residential units.

Quickly, county solid waste staff had to prepare and present information to the various responsible planning entities about the county’s solid waste disposal facilities and its plans for the future. Within days of learning of the City of St. Petersburg and the developer’s Comprehensive Plan change request, county solid waste staff presented their position and concerns at the October 13, 2003, TBRPC public hearing. This was the first of a series of required actions by the developer for project approval. The action of the TBRPC would be forwarded to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and approval, as required by state law. Surprisingly, in preparation for their presentation, county staff learned that the staff person at the TBRPC responsible for evaluation of the developer’s application was not aware that the county’s solid waste property was contiguous to the developer’s. This event was the first indication of a theme that would be restated by the proponents of the proposed development throughout the ensuing process. That is, the solid waste facilities were operated so well that with proper site planning by the developer the solid waste facilities could coexist with new high-density residential development. In later public hearings on the subject, the developer strongly argued that the county’s suggestion of the potential of negative environmental impacts from the sanitary landfill and waste-to-energy plant—i.e., noise, traffic, dust, odor, birds, and litter—was just county staff crying “Chicken Little—the sky is falling.”

With county input, TBRPC staff substantially changed their recommendation from nearly unconditional approval to one that would result in substantial “extra-jurisdictional impacts” not in conformance with the agency’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan. While the proposal received substantial discussion and debate by the TBRPC board (composed of elected and appointed officials for the four-county west-central Florida area), the application for an amendment to the City of St. Petersburg’s Comprehensive Plan changing the allowable land use for the project site from Industrial Limited to Planned Industrial Mixed Use was adopted. The amendment was the first step to allow the construction of high-density residential housing—up to 75 units per acre—as part of a planned industrial/commercial project.

The next step in the process was for the application to be considered by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC), a 13-member legislatively established planning agency, consisting of elected officials representing the county and its 24 municipalities. With the favorable TBRPC action, the PPC hearing was set for November 19, 2003. As in the case of the TBRPC, it was determined PPC staff had little knowledge of the relationship of the developer’s property to the existing and future solid waste facilities. In early November 2003, the Planning Advisory Council (PAC), a staff advisory board to the PPC, voted nearly unanimously to recommend the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the PPC (the one descending vote was the county government’s Planning Department representative). County solid waste staff sought to meet with the PPC executive director. The outcome of the PPC vote was important since any recommendation of the PPC would require a super-majority vote of the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) to overturn.

From Planning to Politics
Unlike the TBRPC process, solid waste staff had time to prepare a formal presentation to the PPC. A video was prepared of landfill operations during a full-waste diversion (approximately 3,500 to 4,000 tpd of MSW), showing the typical impacts from normal landfill operations—queuing garbage trucks, backup alarms, seagulls, etc. As the factual presentation was being prepared, the process to educate the elected decision-makers also ensued.

A major factor in the long-term success of Pinellas County’s solid waste system is the Technical Management Committee (TMC). The TMC was formed as part of the system’s enabling legislation and is composed of solid waste and public works officials representing the county and its municipalities. Realizing the danger of major new residential development to the long-term future of the solid waste system, the TMC voted to authorize its chairman (the solid waste director from the City of Clearwater and an original TMC member), along with the county’s solid waste director and assistant county attorney, to meet individually with the seven-member Board of County Commissioners, as well as interested elected officials from the municipalities. As these meetings progressed, it was clear the developer and his consultants also were meeting with and lobbying the elected officials.

The county staff/TMC position was not to object to development of the adjacent property as it was currently zoned (i.e., Industrial Limited), but to propose that any zoning changes to allow Mixed Use/Residential Use have an appropriate setback. The suggested setback was 2,000 feet.

While there was much internal staff debate (county staff for the Department of Solid Waste Operations, Planning Department, County Attorney’s Office, and consultants), the 2,000-foot setback was chosen based on experience with local landfill operating conditions and sound planning judgment. While county staff hoped to find many examples of similar zoning experiences elsewhere, as shown in Table 1, little direct practical help was found. What was confirmed is that the majority of published studies and regulations deal with the corollary but opposite situation of siting landfills near existing development.

Even with a formal presentation and acknowledgement by the PPC staff of the significance of the solid waste properties, the PPC passed the developer’s requested Comprehensive Plan change allowing for new residential development within 500 feet of the solid waste property line. The next “stop” was before the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA.

As required, the CPA held a public hearing on the PPC action on December 16, 2003, and, after hearing the testimony of all parties, directed that a new county ordinance be drafted to establish criteria for a minimum 2,000-foot setback for new residential development adjacent to the landfill property line. Lesser setback distances would be subject to the county’s existing zoning variance procedures. On March 9, 2004, the ordinance was passed with an effective date of March 31, 2004. At the time of this writing (June 2004), the developer had filed the required variance application with the county’s Department of Review Services.

Solid Waste Siting Standards
One of the first steps of county solid waste staff was to gather information on separation distances between solid waste facilities and residential developments. Table 1 lists some of these research findings. The federal EPA, in its Subtitle D Solid Waste Disposal Criteria, and all 50 states have established strict regulations governing the design, construction, and operation of sanitary landfills. Also, most of the states have established regulations regarding other solid waste management facilities. For the most part, the purposes of these rules and regulations are to ensure protection of public health and safety as well as the environment. Almost all these regulations include siting standards for solid waste facilities, which are usually stated as prohibitions or restrictions. Examples of such prohibitions and restrictions include prohibiting certain landfill types within certain distances of airports, construction in floodplains, construction on or near wetlands, construction in seismic or fault areas, distance from drinking-water wells, and depth above the groundwater table. These prohibitions and restrictions vary from state to state to reflect local conditions and concerns. However, they have several characteristics in common: They are directed toward protecting the environment by limiting development in areas that may pose a health or safety issue or directly affect the environment, and they focus heavily on engineering factors that ensure the facility will not pose a potential threat to health or the environment. These characteristics are also based upon operation of the facility in accordance with strict operating and monitoring requirements. Finally, they do not address land-use issues, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and proximity to residential development. Many states, including Florida, require that the site be zoned properly.

Other federal and state regulations exist that may affect the siting of solid waste facilities. These include the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, regulations protecting national and state parks and historic areas, land preservation, etc. While some of these regulations require consideration of nearby land uses, they are limited and are directed toward protection of legislatively designated areas of federal and/or state concern.

It is important to point out that for all the rules and regulations, there is a presumption that if the solid waste facility complies with the siting standards and is constructed and operated in accordance with design, construction, and operating standards, it will impact neither public health and safety nor the environment.

As stated above, siting standards contained in federal and state solid waste facility regulations do not directly address compatibility with surrounding land uses and, more specifically, proximity to residential development. There are two primary reasons that this has occurred. First, the regulations and associated siting standards are based upon meeting groundwater and surface-water standards, air-quality criteria, and protection of such specific resources as wetlands. The design, construction, and operating requirements are based upon meeting and exceeding these standards. The regulatory standards are based upon modeling, engineering analyses, and scientific studies that can demonstrate compliance. The regulations are based upon quantifiable and measurable procedures that have been demonstrated, and which are defensible, to achieve the desired end. Land-use considerations, particularly impacts on residential uses, are extremely difficult to quantify and measure in a defensible manner. The presumption is that the solid waste facility will be operated properly; however, offsite impacts may occasionally occur. More important are perceived potential impacts. While some studies have been undertaken to try and measure these impacts, they tend to be very site-specific and have difficulty in defining measurable results that may be applied in a broad sense.

Secondly, land-use and zoning considerations in this country are almost universally considered local issues, which are best decided by local community policymakers. Solid waste facilities usually require specific changes to land-use plans and/or zoning to allow for their development. The local forum where these changes are made is where the issue of compatibility with residential land uses is decided. Such changes require hearings that allow for public input into the process. Some states, as part of the permitting process, require public meetings. Many local communities in their land-use and zoning codes have placed restrictions on the siting of solid waste facilities to help define such land-use compatibility. It is interesting to note that examples of restrictions on land use near solid waste facilities at the local level are extremely rare.

In summary, federal and state regulations setting siting criteria for solid waste facilities are primarily focused on protection of public health and safety and the environment. They are based upon quantifiable and measurable standards. Land-use compatibility is generally considered a local decision. Many of the factors considered in determining land-use compatibility, particularly between solid waste facilities and residential uses, are not directly quantifiable and measurable. Decisions are made by local policymakers with respect to setting land-use compatibility standards. Courts have shown a strong reluctance to overturn such decisions and substitute their judgment for local officials on these issues.

Three Illustrative Case Studies of Premature Solid Waste Facility Closures
In addition to gathering information on ordinances requiring various separation distances between solid waste facilities and residential developments, county staff and consultants reviewed illustrative case studies where complaints from residential neighbors of operating solid waste facilities resulted in premature closure of these facilities.

Bee Ridge Landfill, Sarasota County, FL
The Bee Ridge Landfill was sited as a Sarasota County landfill in the 1970s. Although the county had completed planning studies aimed at locating another landfill site, it went ahead in 1981 to expand the Bee Ridge Landfill instead of building an entirely new facility. At that time, the Bee Ridge area was still a remote area of the county with little, if any, commercial or residential development.

However, all that apparently changed in the late 1980s as several large residential developments were under development in the vicinity of the landfill. These were “upscale” golfing homes/condos with prices in the range of $400,000 to $500,000. Unfortunately, while the county went to extraordinary lengths to mitigate the usual impacts of landfills (noise, odor, littering, truck traffic on local roads, etc.), it is the authors’ opinion that the residents felt that they were misinformed about the landfill when they originally bought their homes. As a consequence, the residents made daily complaints to county officials and commissioners about methane odors, littering on local roads, sideslope washouts after heavy rains, birds, etc. Although the complaints did not receive much press attention at the time, these residents were politically influential and complained directly to their elected representatives. Further, the level of complaints caused the commission to direct staff to immediately plan on siting another landfill at a more remote location in the county. As a result of these studies, the county commission voted in 1986 to purchase the 6,150-acre Walton Tract as the site for the new county landfill.

For the next 12 years the county embarked on a long period of litigation with local residents in the vicinity of the Walton Tract, environmental organizations, and the federal government to site and permit the Walton Tract for the Central Landfill. Challenges and re-challenges to existing consultant studies were heard in federal courts. It was not until April 1998 that the Central Landfill opened and the Bee Ridge Landfill was closed.

Due to the extensive amount of planning, permitting, legal, and construction work that was required to site the new landfill, the county’s costs for landfill disposal have escalated significantly over the past decade. Initial disposal rates for county users (solid waste haulers) in the mid-1980s (before significant siting and construction started on the Central Landfill) ranged from roughly $40 to $45 per ton. The current rate (effective February 2, 2004) for solid waste haulers is $63.77 per ton. The move from the Bee Ridge Landfill probably resulted in a 50% increase in the cost of solid waste disposal to county residents.

Martin County, FL
Briefly, Martin County had sited its only landfill in the vicinity of Interstate 95, which served the county extremely well. At the time the landfill was sited, this area in Martin County was fairly remote and had limited residential population. However, due to its proximity to I-95 and the Florida Turnpike, the Board of County Commissioners had approved several rezoning and land-use changes. Consequently, major residential developments (Stewart West and Cobblestone Country Club) were sited adjacent to the boundary for the county’s sole landfill.

Many realtors failed to inform potential buyers that the landfill was adjacent to their property (a small drainage swale separated the boundary of the homes and the landfill property). In fact, oftentimes buyers were misinformed and told that the landfill was closing. In fact, the landfill had decades of future capacity. As one might imagine, once a significant number of homes were sold (price range $300,000 to $400,000) and the community was established, a vocal group of residents began complaining about landfill operations to both staff and the commission. Groups appeared at every board meeting, flyers were circulated, and community members wore orange T-shirts emblazoned with “MOVE THE DUMP” at practically every commission event. While staff developed a proactive educational campaign to inform the public and the adjoining neighborhood about landfill operations, nothing they did appeared to satisfy the residents. The county invested in very expensive odor-misting systems to minimize normal landfill odors and adjusted landfill operations.

With all of the bad press that ensued, the board came to a decision to close the landfill, even though it had many years of landfill life remaining (additional landfill cells could be designed and constructed). They entered into a long-term disposal contract (30 years) with Waste Management Inc. to dispose of the county’s waste in Okeechobee County. The landfill tipping rate at that time was $38.60 per ton and, with Consumer Price Index escalators, the current tipping fee is estimated at $61 per ton.

Osceola County, FL
Osceola County owned and operated the sole Class I solid waste landfill—the Southport Landfill, which was located in proximity to the city of Kissimmee. Similar to Martin County, Osceola County closed its landfill and has since contracted with a private waste-disposal operator, Omni Waste, to provide solid waste disposal capacity.

When the Southport Landfill was originally sited, this area was fairly remote. However, with increasing growth in the county, large residential developments were sited adjacent to the landfill. Some of these included upscale developments, which catered to seasonal residents. One development was immediately downwind from the landfill and numerous odor and equipment noise complaints were received, almost on a daily basis. County staff developed a proactive education program, which included tours of the landfill, presentations at the civic association’s recreation room, etc.

Unfortunately, the staff was unable to respond to resident complaints. Litigation ensued and a consent order was finally approved, which mandated that the landfill would have to be closed, although significant space existed at Southport for many years of solid waste capacity.

Current tipping rates at the new Omni Waste site are currently pegged at the old tipping fee rate at Southport ($38 per ton). However, with the cost of the landfill transfer station and CPI escalators built into the Omni/Osceola contract, the county will be paying significantly more for landfill disposal.

What the Pinellas County, Florida, Solid Waste Ordinance Accomplishes
Information and data gathered during the course of our research assisted in developing a proposed solid waste ordinance with buffering or setback distances, which was then considered by the Board of County Commissioners. The unusual layering of processes within Pinellas County comprehensive planning, however, complicated the changes contemplated by the city to its Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended is a special act of the Florida legislature that created the PPC and the CPA. The PPC and the CPA jointly have the responsibility of maintaining a Countywide Comprehensive Plan and a Countywide Future Land Use Plan with which all local governments within the county must remain consistent. The legislature’s expressed intent in that act was to coordinate planning and development among the county’s 24 municipalities and the county government. The state recognized that there was such a level of interdependence among the large number of local governments within a land area of roughly 264 square miles as to necessitate broad oversight to prevent the actions of one local government from adversely affecting another, or the county as a whole.

Nothing could have provided a better example of the ill the legislature was trying to cure than the attempt by the City of St. Petersburg to expand its tax base while putting the countywide solid waste disposal facilities in jeopardy. The city sought to allow a multibillion-dollar development, which would provide significant tax income to the city, in an area abutting the current and future countywide solid waste disposal facilities. The city’s efforts were not uniformly rebuffed, largely due to the fact that the City of Pinellas Park had visions of similar developments. To that end, the two cities jointly requested that the industrial areas countywide be changed to allow for residential development. Despite the fevered political battle, the competing interests of the cities and the remainder of the county were resolved through the oversight process put in place by the legislature. Ultimately, the countywide future land-use categories were changed to allow for mixed-use residential development, but only under extremely limited circumstances, and the changes would only become effective after a period of approximately three months.

While the only developer with known plans to take advantage of the changes celebrated, and with the threat of extremely dense residential development looming on the doorstep of the county’s only solid waste disposal facility, the Pinellas County Commission took steps to ensure the longevity of its valuable countywide asset. The Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance that would restrict future expansion of residential uses near the solid waste disposal facilities. In passing the ordinance, the board recognized the very real threat of both legal and political challenges that could be brought to bear if large numbers of residential properties were to be located near its current landfill, waste-to-energy facility, or landfill expansion. Since the county has the legal responsibility not only under Florida general law, but also under a special act of the Florida legislature and the county’s charter, the board was forced to protect its ability to provide necessary disposal services.

Opponents of the ordinance suggested alternatives—touted as solutions—to resolving the county’s fears of impacts from future residential developments on the continued life of the solid waste disposal facilities. Among those were deed covenants to be recorded by the developer that prohibited property owners from complaining about landfill activities on the county’s property. It was also suggested that the city would require buffering and other onsite abatement within the mixed-use development that would minimize the exposure of the residents to the ongoing and future solid waste disposal activities. One developer’s representatives went so far as to state that since the county represented to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that it had no issues with odors, noise, birds, etc., there were no impacts that could be experienced by nearby residents. Detractors also urged that the creation of such a buffering ordinance both was beyond the county’s powers and would result in unconstitutional takings.

Ultimately, the County Commission resolved the matter with an ordinance prohibiting residential development within 2,000 feet of the property boundaries of the solid waste disposal facilities without a variance. The 2,000-foot distance was set as a matter of legislative policy by the board. The commissioners found that the separation of incompatible residential development from the Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities is directly concerned with the provision of countywide solid waste disposal services. The board did include criteria that would allow for residential development when practical difficulty or undue hardship arose from the application of the buffer ordinance. They also included criteria, beyond that initial determination of hardship, to consider in the decision of whether or not the variance should be granted. Implicit in any variance determination is that the granting of a variance will not cause detrimental impacts to, or be injurious to, the property or improvements of other properties in the same area.

The ordinance was carefully drafted to avoid successful takings claims by excepting from application all residential uses that were vested as of the effective date of the ordinance; for properties that allowed residential development on the effective date of the ordinance, it would be as if the ordinance had never passed. It is critical to note that the ordinance went into effect prior to the effective date of the changes made to the industrial category in the countywide Comprehensive Plan, thereby cutting short any claims of vested property rights in residential development.

The most contentious of the criteria is that the board must consider requiring a “landfill easement.” The easement was a creation of the ordinance and is defined by the ordinance as

a deed restriction, easement, or covenant to run with the land placed upon the entirety of a development project that does all of the following:

Exists in perpetuity.
Requires written notification prior to closing by each seller of real property to potential buyers of that real property of the existence, location, and nature of the Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. The required notification shall include a statement that the Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities process and dispose of over one million tons of MSW per year and include current contact information for the Director of Pinellas County Solid Waste Operations.

Requires written notification by each lessor of real property, within any lease or rental agreement, to potential lessees of that real property of the existence, and location, and nature of the Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. The required notification shall include a statement that the Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities process and dispose of over one million tons of MSW per year and include current contact information for the Director of Pinellas County Solid Waste Operations.

Recognizes that the Pinellas County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities may eventually reach a height of at least one hundred and fifty (150) feet above existing grade and possibly higher if allowed by applicable permitting authorities.

States that [fail] by a seller or a lessor to provide both a copy of the deed restriction, easement or covenant running with the land and the notice required, … as applicable, shall create a rebuttable presumption of fraud in the inducement to the contract for sale or lease.

That the terms of the deed restriction, easement or covenant running with the land shall inure to the benefit of the other owners or tenants of the development project as well as to Pinellas County, and shall be enforceable by any of those entities in circuit court.

Opponents argued that the imposition of such an easement would be a taking of property (as an uncompensated exaction), that the easement was extremely burdensome on the developer, and that the ability of the developer and subsequent purchasers of the property to sell or lease the property would be chilled. Florida law is clear, however, in that there is broad discretion in the type and nature of conditions that may be placed on variances. The granting of a variance is not a matter of right, but rather the discretionary relief from burden by the regulating authority. The nature and extent of the burden on any developer created by such an easement is legislatively determined by the ordinance to be subordinate to the interests of the county’s residents as a whole and the County Commission’s statutory obligation to provide countywide waste disposal.

The largest apparent struggle with respect to the legislative decision was the lack of scientific data to guide the board in setting an adequate separation distance. A brief review of how other local governments had addressed the issues resulted in determining that previously only one other local government has set a required separation for residential units from solid waste facilities. That was Placer County, CA.

Placer County had set a 1-mile separation distance between its landfill and any future residential development. A developer challenged that ordinance as an arbitrary decision since the county presented no scientific evidence to support its 1-mile setback distance. The court, in upholding the county ordinance, found that “the restriction has a reasonable relation to the public welfare and is a valid exercise of the County’s police powers” (Placer Ranch Partners v. County of Placer, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1343 (Cal. 3rd DCA, 2001).

Other local governments had placed further zoning restrictions on solid waste facilities, however. This was presumably to reduce or avoid the effects of having these two incompatible uses too close together. These restrictions varied widely and the chart used to illustrate these differences to the Pinellas County Commission is shown in Table 1.

Recommendations for Future Work Efforts
Solid waste facilities exhibit all of the major facets of industrial operations. They can generate fugitive dusts, odors, and noise; result in high traffic levels; and attract vectors. Operating such facilities at the peak of efficiency and under stringent federal, state, and local environmental regulations can nonetheless result in varying degrees of these impacts. As this article has illustrated, most siting standards nationwide have focused on the compatibility of solid waste facilities with nearby land uses through the use of buffering or setbacks. Few, if any, localities have addressed the rational basis for urban infilling developments or redevelopments desiring to site in proximity to existing solid waste facilities. Balancing the needs of economic growth and increased tax base against the need to preserve valuable solid waste capacity poses a real dilemma for public officials. Political issues aside, current zoning law allows such officials to establish buffering or setback limits using only a rational basis rather than requiring a firm analytical or quantitative methodology.

As the nation continues to experience urban infilling in areas once believed to be remote, solid waste managers will undoubtedly be faced with issues of potential property-owner complaints regarding solid waste operations. Anecdotal evidence from trade journals, newsletters, and word of mouth suggests that urban infilling is becoming a significant problem in many areas, although there is limited reliable information and data currently available. Further, little, if any, academic research is being conducted to measure typical operational impacts of solid waste facilities with varying setback distances from different land uses. The issue is further complicated by the fact that often these impacts are “perceived impacts.” The authors firmly believe that as urban infilling development or redevelopment continues, solid waste managers, political decision-makers, and environmental/land-use regulators will need reliable data and information to balance the needs for continued economic growth with protecting the long-term ability of solid waste managers to continue operation of these critical public facilities.

Marc J. Rogoff, Ph.D., is assistant director of the John Scott Dailey Florida Institute of Government at the University of South Florida. Warren Smith is director of the Department of Solid Waste Operations, Pinellas County Utilities. Donald S. Crowell is a Pinellas County senior assistant county attorney. Robert Hauser is operations manager of the Department of Solid Waste Operations, Pinellas County Utilities. Virginia Harrell is director of the John Scott Dailey Florida Institute of Government at the University of South Florida.

MSW - Elements 2006