A dead Charlotte citrus farm, now a dump and mine
Tuesday, the Charlotte County Commission approved, by a 3-2 vote, a plan to turn a former citrus grove into a yard waste disposal site and “nature preserve” as the centerpiece of a large housing development.
The 300-acre site, east of Punta Gorda, is a former citrus farm. In recent years, the operators have accepted FEMA-funded yard waste generated during hurricanes. Under the approved plan, the topsoil will be removed to a depth of approximately 14 feet, the excavation filled with yard waste and the site eventually replanted with native trees. The excavated soil will be sold for use in housing pads throughout the county, while shell material from the property is also being marketed.
The Beacon has not traditionally covered development projects in eastern Charlotte County; however, a project of this scale affects residents throughout the region, and the hearing offered a revealing glimpse into Charlotte County government. A recurring theme during the meeting was that a preliminary approval granted in 2023 had somehow established a precedent that made the current approval difficult to deny.
Throughout the hearing, citizens raised questions that county staff should have been asking the applicant long before the public hearing, and certainly before earlier approvals. One of the most compelling speakers was Diane Heck, a retired geologist and chemical scientist from Delaware. She questioned the wisdom of burying mixed vegetative debris and the potential generation of methane gas. Anyone who has maintained a compost pile understands that organic material decomposes over time. Even the applicant’s own representative could only estimate how long that process would take, telling commissioners, “We figure it takes three to five years.”
Thankfully, the item had been removed from the consent agenda in May, allowing for a full public discussion, and not hidden figures.
During the hearing, a retired attorney formerly representing the applicant was permitted to return to the podium to respond to issues raised before the board, while equally qualified citizens who had spoken in opposition were not afforded the same opportunity. Later, the project’s current attorney acknowledged that, when commissioners became “hung up” on unresolved concerns, the applicant had not “had a chance to meet with staff,” adding that they would later “sit down with staff to come up with a resolution.”
That statement should concern every resident of Charlotte County. Public hearings are supposed to be the place where issues are resolved, and should not lead to private meetings afterward between applicants and county staff.
There is a growing belief among local elected officials that their hands are tied because any vote against a project could result in litigation. The repeated invocation of “quasi-judicial” proceedings and the threat of lawsuits has become an excuse for avoiding difficult decisions. That is not why voters elect commissioners. They are elected to exercise independent judgment, ask hard questions and vote according to the facts and their conscience.
Indeed, in neighboring Sarasota County, a developer is personally suing a county commissioner over a project east of Interstate 75. But the answer is not to surrender. Commissioners should make it clear to their administrators that they expect the county to defend lawful decisions they believe are in the public interest. That is why counties employ attorneys and maintain legal budgets. Yes, litigation costs money. But Charlotte County found more than $680,000 for a median landscaping project on Gasparilla Road. Surely it can hire a competent Tallahassee attorney willing to help the county exercise independent judgment in carrying out elected responsibilities.
The Beacon does not endorse candidates, as we serve readers in two counties. It is worth noting, however, that Commissioners Chris Constance and Steven Deutsch, both seeking reelection, voted against this proposal.
Remember this the next time you need a building permit to install a mini-split air conditioner or replace a window in your house. Consider the time, expense and paperwork required for those routine improvements, then compare that process with the relative ease of obtaining approval to operate what is, in effect, a large commercial yard waste disposal site and a 2.2 million-yard (according to a state permit) excavation project.
Speaker after speaker raised thoughtful concerns. Among them was a nearby rural property owner who described living with the noise, traffic and disruption from the neighboring operation. Another speaker pointed out a disparity in taxation. For her 10-acre parcel, she paid approximately $6,700 in property taxes in one recent year, while the 300-acre FEMA yard waste site paid less than $1,000 in one year and about $5,700 in another.
During the presentation of a later case, a county planner introduced a case by saying, “I have one more thing to talk” with the “about” clearly missing. The language through the presentation was not the standard of communication expected from an individual presented as an expert in a quasi-judicial proceeding. If the county expects us to rely on that expertise, it also has a responsibility to ensure that the testimony is communicated clearly, professionally and without ambiguity.
The whole purpose of planning is for staff to evaluate the broader public interests and identify ways to mitigate adverse impacts on existing residents. There is little value in having a comprehensive plan if it becomes merely a document that special interests can reshape. Staff has much work to do to restore public confidence in the integrity, transparency and fairness of its land-use process.
Help us understand.
Garland Pollard is editor of the Beacon. Email editor@bocabeacon.com
