Preview
Filing # ME E-Filed 06/01/2022 01:54:04 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
SOUTH FLORIDA OPS, LLC.,
a Florida limited liability company
Plaintiff;
vs.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
HENDRY COUNTY and HENDRY COUNTY,
FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of
Florida
Defendants.
COMPLAINT.
Plaintiff, SOUTH FLORIDA OPS, LLC., (“FLORIDA OPS”), by and through its
undersigned attorneys, Pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (2022), bring this action
against the Defendants, Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County (“Commission”)
and Hendry County, Florida (“County”) and in support allege:
1. Plaintiff appeals and challenges the consistency of the order issued by the County,
by and through the Commission, rendered on May 2, 2022, Resolution No. 2022-24, (the “Order”)
(a copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit “A”), with the County's Comprehensive Plan adopted
March 5, 1991, as amended (the “Plan’”) and the County’s Land Development Code, as amended
(the “LDC”).
2. The Order approved a Special Exception to allow an agricultural processing use on
a portion of the subject property to construct a biosolids and horticulture recycling facility. (the
“Special Exception”), pursuant to the application, dated March 31, 2022, submitted by SCS
Engineers, on behalf of Winget Mill Composting, LLC, (the “Applicant”), and in support allege:
Electronically Filed Hendry Case # 22000303CAAXMX 06/01/2022 01:54:04 PMPARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Chapters 86 and 60,
Florida Statutes, and Section 163.3215(3), Florida Statutes (2022), to invalidate the Order.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida
Statutes (2022).
5. Plaintiff is the owner of real property located directly adjacent to the proposed
biosolids and horticulture recycling facility.
6. As a property owner directly adjacent to the proposed biosolids and horticulture
recycling facility, Plaintiff will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the
Plan and LDCs, resulting from the issuance of the Order.
7. Plaintiff, therefore, has an interest in the Order that exceeds in degree the general
interest in community good shared by all persons.
8. Plaintiff is an “aggrieved and adversely affected party,” as defined in Section
163.3215(2), Florida Statutes (2022).
9. The Order is a “development order,” as defined in Section 163.3164, Florida
Statutes (2022).
10. Defendant, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HENDRY COUNTY, are
employees of HENDRY COUNTY located within the State of Florida and therefore subject to this
Court’s Jurisdiction.
11. Defendant, HENDRY COUNTY, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida
and therefore subject to this Court’s Jurisdiction.
12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 47.011, Florida Statutes, as
Hendry County is where all Defendants reside and where the property that is the subject of thislitigation is located.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Property
13. The property that is the subject of this case is an approximately 253.13 acre parcel
located north of Wainwright road along the border with Collier County, with a parcel address of
30070 County Road 858, Immokalee, Florida 34142. Parcel ID Number: 1-31-47-07-A00-
001.0000 (The “Property”).
The Development Order
14. On April 26, 2022, County, through the Commission, adopted Resolution No.
2022-24, which approved the special exception on the Property.
15. Hendry County Resolution No. 2022-24, was rendered, meaning it was filed with
the Clerk of the County Commission on May 2, 2022.
16. — Resolution No. 2022-24 is a Development Order under Section 163.3164(7),
Florida Statutes (2022) that pursuant to Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes (2022) must be
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and must meet all other criteria enumerated by
the local government.
17. The Order improperly approved by the County on May 2, 2022, grants a special
exception for a processing use on a portion of the subject property to construct a biosolids and
horticulture recycling facility.
18. The Property is currently zoned General Agriculture (A-2) with Future Land Use
Classification (FLUC) of Agriculture. The type of intended use as a biosolids and horticulture
recycling facility is considered “agricultural processing” which requires a special exception
approval from the County. The 253.13-acre portion of the property will contain areas for
horticultural material storage, material grinding, horticultural material and biosolid composting.Hendry County Comprehensive Plan
19. Pursuant the Local Comprehensive Planning Act, Chapter 163 Part II, Florida
Statutes, County adopted on March 5, 1991, the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan has regularly been amended since that date.
20. | The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of the community which helps dictate
appropriate zoning and development standards for properties in Hendry County. The proposed
special exception must comply with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole.
21. | The Development Order violates provisions, goals, objectives, and policies in the
Plan including those specifically set forth below.
22. The County revised the goals, objectives, and policies in order to provide, among
other things:
I. The orderly and timely conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses
in appropriate locations and sustainable forms, while discouraging urban sprawl
and directing incompatible land uses away from important natural systems and
listed species;
Il. Utilization of creative land use techniques establishing both baseline standards
and incentive-based programs to balance agricultural viability, natural resource
preservation, and protection of private property rights.
23. | The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision, because it does not
direct incompatible land uses away from important natural systems and listed species, ensure the
protection of conservation features, promote compatibility with the adjacent residential areas, and
ensure the protection of private property rights.
24. In evaluating the existing land use patterns and policies, each land use district
criteria is required to be consistent with County land use development regulations. The first goal
of the Plan states:Toe vie the development and maintenance of a functional and well related pattern
of land use types that provides for population growth, land development and
redevelopment, and the appropriate distribution, location and densities and
intensities of use consistent with adequate services and facilities and consideration
of natural resources.
25. The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision, because the proposed
land use type does not provide for population growth, and the intensity of the use is not consistent
the consideration of natural resources.
26. The purpose of the conservation element of the Comprehensive Plan is set forth in
Goal 5, which states: The purpose of the Conservation Element is to provide for the conservation,
appropriate use, and protection of natural resources within Hendry County.
27. The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision, because the proposed
land use type would impact the air quality, release pathogens and risk the spreading of infections.
28. The quality of the air in Hendry County is very good. The County currently has no
air quality categories for which it has nonattainment status under the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. However,
the development order granting of a proposed use as a biosolids composting facility, is expected
to generate odor and dust from its operations. The potential for odors is expected to be higher in
the summer months.
29. In compliance with the requirements set forth in F.A.C 62.640-600(1a) and 40 CFR
Part 503, all compost derived from the treated biosolids marketed and applied to land must adhere
to pathogen reduction requirements. The process must achieve the Class AA status with the goal
of reducing the level of pathogens to where they are undetectable and not able to spread infections.
30. The purpose of the traffic circulation element is to establish the actions necessary
to provide and maintain a safe, convenient, and efficient traffic circulation system in HendryCounty, to meet the needs of the County's existing development and projected future growth
together with Goal 8 - To achieve and maintain a coordinated, balanced traffic circulation system
within Hendry County for the convenient, safe, effective and efficient movement of people and
goods.
31. | The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision and Goal 8, because the
proposed land use type is expected to generate an additional 104 daily trips of commercial vehicles
delivering biosolids to the Winget property. Winget’s own commissioned trip study evidences
this impact.
32. Further, Goal 12, and objectives 12.1 and 12.2 address Henry County’s tourist-
oriented economy. Specifically, Goal 12 states, “Hendry County will strive to achieve and
maintain a diversified and stable economy by providing a positive business climate that assures
maximum employment opportunities while maintaining a high quality of life.”
OBJECTIVE 12.1: Hendry County will promote the conservation and
enhancement of natural, cultural, and social resources that represent the County’s
agriculture, retirement, recreation, and tourist-oriented economy.
OBJECTIVE 12.2: Hendry County will support programs that are designed to
expand and enhance the tourism industry.
33. | The Development Order is inconsistent with this Goal and objectives, because the
proposed land use type is expected to generate severe odors, pathogens and the risk of spreading
infections. This would directly impact Plaintiff's property which a portion of which is a tourist
destination as a private gun club and training facility, in operation for over seven years, with
350,000 square feet of buildings approved by the federal government the training of special
operations, contractors, military units and related activities.
Hendry County Land Development Code
34. In order to approve a special exception, Section 1-51-6.3 sets forth the Standardsfor action by the Commission, and requires that the approval of a special exception application
shall be granted by the board of county commissioners only upon finding that:
I. The proposed uses and structures would not violate the land uses, densities, or
other directives of the adopted comprehensive plan or of this code.
Il. | The proposed uses and structures would not be incompatible with the uses,
structures and activities on adjacent and nearby lands.
Ill. | The proposed uses and structures would not violate the health, safety, welfare,
and/or convenience of those residing, working or owning land in the vicinity of
the proposed use or structure, specifically with respect to:
vi.
vii.
The use or structure would not exceed the applicable density or bulk
regulations except as specifically authorized, nor shall the use or
structure result in overcrowding of land or buildings;
The use or structure would not impair pedestrian or vehicular movement
in adjoining streets so as to violate adopted level of service standards;
The use or structure would not create a fire hazard;
The use or structure would not result in noise, odor, glare, vibration, or
other similar characteristic which is detectable at the property line and
which exceeds the level which will result from permitted uses;
The use or structure would not prevent an adjoining landowner from the
legal use of his property pursuant to this code;
The use or structure would not violate a requirement or limitation of any
applicable state or federal law or regulation; and
The use or structure would not result in the inadequacy or inability of
any public facility or service to meet adopted standards.
35. | As mandated in Section 1-51-6.3, the special exception can only be granted upon a
finding by the Commission that the proposed use meets the required standards. In this case, the
Development Order application failed to meet the standards set forth in 1-51-6.3(2) and (3)(d) and
().
36. The Development Order does not comply with the mandatory requirementsprescribed in Sec. 1-51-6.2 (c), and Sec. 1-51-6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDCs. In fact, the
testimony at the hearing established that the proposed special exception is not compatible with the
uses, structures and activities on adjacent and nearby lands, and it is indisputable that the special
exception permitting a biosolids facility will be quite odorous.
37. | The Commission, in approving the Development Order, failed to evaluate the
impacts of the proposed biosolid facility as required by Sec. 1-51-6.3(3) of the County's LDCs,
including incompatibility “with the uses, structures and activities on adjacent and nearby lands;
the use or structure would not result in noise, odor, glare, vibration, or other similar characteristic
which is detectable at the property line and which exceeds the level which will result from
permitted uses; the use or structure would not prevent an adjoining landowner from the legal use
of his property pursuant to this code.” In fact, the Planning Director’s presentation during the
Commission’s quasi-judicial hearing was abruptly cut off following a mere description of where
the property is located.
38. Lastly, the Commission, in approving the Development Order, failed to comply
with the review criteria prescribed in Sec. 1-51-6.3(3) of the County's LDCs for special exceptions.
The proposed biosolids facility will adversely affect property values in the surrounding area. In
fact, the Staff Report is shockingly silent as to any mention of odor when addressing the criteria
in Sec. 1-51-6.3(3)(d), simply stating, that “It is not anticipated the proposed uses will result in
glare, vibration, or other similar characteristic detectable at the property line, provided the
conditions herein are met. Approval of the Special Exception does not authorize any violation of
the County’s noise ordinance.”
39. Instead of addressing the special exception’s potential effect on the surrounding
area, the staff report and Winget’s application consisted of wholly irrelevant and conclusorystatements. In addressing the criteria in Sec. 1-51-6.3(3)(e), the Staff Report provides a generic
response stating, that “The proposed use will not prevent the adjacent property owners from
utilizing their properties.”
40. | The County's issuance of the Order is inconsistent with the Plan and Section 1-51-
6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDC for Special Exceptions, which provides that the Commission
shall utilize the review criteria as applicable in the consideration of all special exception
applications.
41. | The Order approved a Special Exception to allow an agricultural processing use on
a portion of the subject property to construct a biosolids and horticulture recycling facility. The
on-site conditions expressly permitted in the Order approving the special exception were
shockingly devoid of any mention of odors. (Exhibit “A”).
42. There does not appear in the Order or in the Commission' s consideration of the
biosolids and horticulture recycling facility any analysis or determination by or for the
Commission of sensory impacts from the special exception's biosolids processing such as odor and
pollution on the contiguous and surrounding area.
43. The biosolids and horticulture recycling facility's use will have an unreasonable,
incompatible impact on the contiguous and surrounding areas, including the Plaintiff’s property,
in respect to odor, pollution, business impacts, and traffic.
44. In accordance with the Plan, and Section 1-51-6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDC,
the special exception should not have been approved by the Commission.
45. For the reasons stated in this Complaint, the Order approving the special exception
is inconsistent with the Plan and Section 1-51-6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDC and will result
in irreparable harm, injury and damage to the Plaintiff and its property interests.COUNT I - DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
46. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Local Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act (“Local Comprehensive Planning Act”), requires each local
government in Florida to prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan containing mandatory
elements that address important issues such as land use, traffic circulation, conservation, coastal
zone management, and the adequacy of facilities and infrastructure.
47. After a local government has adopted its comprehensive plan, Section
163.3194(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022), requires that all actions taken in regard to Development Orders
shall be consistent with the adopted local comprehensive plan.
48. Section 163.3194(3), Fla. Stat. (2004), defines “consistency” as follows:
I. A development or land development regulation shall be consistent with the
comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspect
of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and
further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the
comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local
government.
Il. A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be
consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities,
capacity or size, timing, or other aspects of the development are compatible
with or further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in
the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local
government.
49. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes provides for citizen enforcement of the
consistency mandate set forth in Section 163.3194 Fla. Stat. (2022). Section 163.3215(1), Fla.
Stat. (2022) provides that “any aggrieved or adversely affected party” may bring a civil action for
injunctive or other relief against any local government to prevent the local government “from
taking any action on a Development Order which materially alters the use or density or intensity
of use” on property in a manner that is not consistent with the adopted local comprehensive plan.50. | The Development Order materially alters the use or density or intensity of land and
is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, including the provisions cited above in
violation of Section 163.3194, Fla. Stat. (2022).
51. Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm because it is undisputed that the
establishment of a neighboring biosolid waste facility will produce offensive odors that will create
a nuisance to Plaintiff's property, an establish gun club and tourist location.
52. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because the County’s
Development Order is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan in violation of Section
163.3194, Florida Statutes. Moreover, it is clear that the County failed to take adequate steps as
required by Florida Law to ensure that the proposed development would not create an incompatible
impact on the contiguous and surrounding areas, including the Plaintiff's property, in respect to
odor, pollution, business impacts, and traffic.
53. There is no adequate remedy of law available to Plaintiff because real property
is unique, Plaintiff has established a long-standing reputation within the community as a popular
tourist destination and gun club, and no amount of monetary damages would be capable of
remedying to nuisance(s) and reputational damage that Plaintiff’s property is likely to suffer from
should a neighboring biosolid waste facility be constructed.
54. The threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs any possible harm to Defendants
because Defendants will suffer no harm from this Court’s issuance of an injunction specifically
precluding the establishment of a biosolid waste facility neighboring Plaintiff's Property because
the issuance of a temporary injunction would merely amount to a requirement that the County
comply with all aspects of its Land Development Codes and Comprehensive Plans, and the County
likely has alternative locations upon which a biosolid waste facility may be conducted. Conversely,Plaintiff's stand to suffer from (1) odorous and noise nuisances that are likely to permeate
Plaintiff's property while exceeding standards allowed by the County’s Code; and (2) reputational
damage to Plaintiff's property as a popular tourism venue and outdoor gun club which is likely to
oceur in the presence of odor and noise nuisances.
55. | The Granting of a Temporary Injunction will not disserve the public interest
here because the County’s Development order is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive
Plan and Section 163.3194, requires that a development order be consistent with a comprehensive
plan. This Court’s issuance of a temporary injunction would serve the public interest by enforcing
the requirements of Florida Statutes and precluding the County’s enforcement and application of
its Development Order that is not consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
56. Plaintiff proposes a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 should it be later
determined that a Temporary Injunction was issued improperly, which it will not be. As explained
in detail above, plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims here because the County’s
Development Order is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan as required by Florida
Law. Resultingly, it is unlikely that a temporary injunction issued in favor of Plaintiff here would
be improperly issued.
57. The Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent to this action and informed the
County of their opposition to the special exception prior to issuance of the Development Order.
58. The Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the
Development Order as a matter of law because it is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive
Plan and it does not meet the review criteria set forth in the County’s Land Development Code.
Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. et al., v. Shidel, 802 So.2d 486 (Fla. 4° DCA 2001), affirmed 821 So.2d 300
(Fla. 2004).WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands a judgment from this Court for the following
relief:
A. That this Court declare that the Development Order is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the review criteria set forth in the County’s Land
Development Code.
B. That this Court enter permanent injunctive relief directing Hendry County to rescind and
annul the Development Order.
C. That this Court issue such further orders as it deems just and practicable and award
Plaintiffs the costs of this action.
GOVERNMENT LAW GROUP PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiff
200 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 601
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 909-0592
Email: AKipnis@govlawgroup.com
Rdewitt@govlawgroup.com
LMyers@govlawgroup.com
By: /s/ Alan G. Kipnis
Alan G. Kipnis
Florida Bar No. 181788
Richard J. Dewitt
Florida Bar No. 879711EXHIBIT "A"
Kimberley Barrineaw
Clerk of Circuit Court, Hendry County
P.O. Box 1760
LaBelle, Florida 33975
Telephone 863-675-5217
Fax 863-675-5238
May 17, 2022
Mark Lapp, County Attorney
PO Box 2340
LaBelle, FL 33975
Re: Resolution 2022-24
Dear Mr. Lapp;
The Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County, Florida, for a
Special Exception to allow agricultural processing for a biosolids composting facility was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 26, 2022 and assigned the
number: Resolution 2022-24. The Clerk, Kimberley Barrineau, was out of town the entire
week from April 25-29, 2022 attending New Clerk Academy. She signed the documents
from the April 26" meeting upon her return on May 2, 2022. I have checked my records
and with the Clerk to verify the date of her signature on Resolution 2022-24. The
resolution is attached to this letter.
Sincerely,
Anite, Be
Anita Bischel
Deputy ClerkCOUNTY OF HENDRY, STATE OF FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - _24
RECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV___, PAGE 172
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENDRY
COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL
PROCESSING FOR A BIOSOLIDS COMPOSTING FACILITY.
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of Hendry County has heretofore held a public
hearing on April 13, 2022, on an application for a Special Exception filed by Winget Mill
Composting, LLC represented by Rocky Robbins (HEARING NO. SE21-0001), and given its
recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County, Florida,
regarding the Special Exception set forth hereafter; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County, Florida, has held a
public hearing this day to hear any and all comments and evidence relating to the application for
said Special Exception.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Hendry County, Florida, that:
1. The Board hereby finds and determines that the requested Special Exception meets
the provisions of Section 1-51-6.3 of the Hendry County Land Development
Regulations, and is hereby granted.
2. The application by Winget Mill Composting, LLC (HEARING NO. SE21-0002) is
limited to the parcels identified by strap number: 1 31 48 07 A00 0001.0000,
described as:
Legal Description:
COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 31 EAST, HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA. THENCE NORTH 00°51'44" WEST,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 7, A DISTANCE
OF 110.49 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE NORTH 00°51'44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,491.15 FEET, TO A POINT 20!
SOUTHERLY OF THE APPROXIMATE CENTER OF A PRIVATE ROAD, THE FIVE
FOLLOWING COURSE; THENCE NORTH 82°45'04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2.20 FEET;
TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH;
THENCE 85.63 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°15'29", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD
WHICH BEARS, SOUTH 83°37'11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 84.83 FEET TO THE END OF
THE CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 69°59'27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 245.93 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 72°40'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 163.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69°15'28" EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 1,749.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID 20' OFFSET LINE, SOUTHRECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV PAGE 173
23°37'02" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 504.78 FEET; TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A
CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST; THENCE 312.64 FEET, ALONG THE ARC
OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 325.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55°07'02",
AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 03°56'29" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 300.73 FEET, TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 31°30'00"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 931.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 09°33'59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
513.18 FEET; TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST; THENCE 670.50 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 475.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 80°52'39", AND
BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 41°08'01" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 616.20 FEET, TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 00°41'42"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,905.32 FEET, TO INTERSECT WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 7; THENCE SOUTH 88°38'28" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 7, A DISTANCE OF 41.52 FEET, TO THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER, THENCE 2,570.75
FEET; TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR CURVE,
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH; THENCE 74.23 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 147.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°55'52", AND BEING
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 76°19'48" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
73.44 FEET TO THE END OF THE CURVE AND TO INTERSECT WITH THE WEST LINE
OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 7; THENCE NORTH 00°47'44" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 1,476.37 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 46°42'34"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 103.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79°57'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
225.03 FEET; TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR
CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST; THENCE 56.89 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF
SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 72°26'05",
AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 43°48'38" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 53.18 FEET TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE NORTH 07°35'35"
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 28°35'45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
367.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01°04'33" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 687.21 FEET; TO THE
POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST;
THENCE 40.93 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°11'21", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD
WHICH BEARS NORTH 44°01'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 36.83 FEET TO THE END OF
THE CURVE; THENCE NORTH 89°06'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 525.03 FEET, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 253.13 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
3. Development shall be in substantial compliance with the Conceptual
Development Plan last revised 2/24/2022 (Exhibit A).
4. Hours of Operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday through
Saturday.
5. Type “D” buffers shall be required between the Horticultural Material
Composting, storage, and grinding areas and the adjacent right-of-way or access
easement to shield the storage areas from view.
Grinding activities shall be set back from the property line 150 feet.
7. Material storage piles shall not exceed 18 feet in height and interior lanes between
stockpiled compost shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
a
2RECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV PAGE 174
8. The Horticulture recycling operations must meet National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) | Fire Code, Chapter 31. In addition, the required SDP shall
include the following information:
a. Details on how the horticulture recycling facility meets the requirements
of NFPA | Chapter 31.
b. An operational plan.
c. Details on the water supply provided for firefighting needs.
d. Access roads with an unobstructed width of not less than 20 ft. pursuant to
NFPA 1 Uniform Fire Code, Florida Edition 18.2.3.4.1.1 and a stabilized
roadway around the piles and at the point of access to the property.
e. Prior to operations starting, a fire inspection of the facility and equipment
shall be required.
9. A Site Development Plan and Building Permits must be approved prior to any
horticultural recycling operations.
10. Subsurface conditions and soil types shall be sufficient to accommodate the loads
and stresses of the proposed facilities.
11. Impacts to wetlands, protected wildlife species, and habitat shall not exceed those
allowed by state and federal agencies.
12. Safeguards must be provided to ensure that any negative impact on air quality
shall not exceed state or federal regulations.
13. Safeguards must be provided to ensure that state and federal surface water and
groundwater contamination regulations are not exceeded.
14. All exotic plant species as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council shall
be removed from the property in perpetuity.
15. If, during site clearing, excavation, or other construction activity, a historic or
archaeological artifact, or other indicator is found, all development within the
minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped.
The County Engineering Department is to be notified of such discovery.
16. Signage shall be in compliance with LDC Section 1-56.
17. Copies of all required state and federal agency permits, including a Florida
Department of Environmental Protection permit, must be provided to Hendry
County Planning & Zoning Department.
18. Approval of this special exception does not in any way create any rights on the
part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not
create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the
applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a
state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or
federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before
commencement of the development.
Done and adopted this 26" day of April, 2022.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
E HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ri ignberley Baie. Clerk
& ee ChEXHIBIT A
RECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV PAGE 175
‘c\veen\soeisp\ApetLocahtemp\AcPblsh4964\6141. Ot Conceptul Development Plan dng Feb 24, 2022-1000um Lay Mame: By SVE
amex cco” L-—_—J
“EY cm |
ES [2
Tana aloe ‘re ocamion
y a AS ae
LOCATION SKETCH
Preview
Filing # ME E-Filed 06/01/2022 01:54:04 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: SOUTH FLORIDA OPS, LLC., a Florida limited liability company Plaintiff; vs. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENDRY COUNTY and HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida Defendants. COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, SOUTH FLORIDA OPS, LLC., (“FLORIDA OPS”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, Pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (2022), bring this action against the Defendants, Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County (“Commission”) and Hendry County, Florida (“County”) and in support allege: 1. Plaintiff appeals and challenges the consistency of the order issued by the County, by and through the Commission, rendered on May 2, 2022, Resolution No. 2022-24, (the “Order”) (a copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit “A”), with the County's Comprehensive Plan adopted March 5, 1991, as amended (the “Plan’”) and the County’s Land Development Code, as amended (the “LDC”). 2. The Order approved a Special Exception to allow an agricultural processing use on a portion of the subject property to construct a biosolids and horticulture recycling facility. (the “Special Exception”), pursuant to the application, dated March 31, 2022, submitted by SCS Engineers, on behalf of Winget Mill Composting, LLC, (the “Applicant”), and in support allege: Electronically Filed Hendry Case # 22000303CAAXMX 06/01/2022 01:54:04 PMPARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Chapters 86 and 60, Florida Statutes, and Section 163.3215(3), Florida Statutes (2022), to invalidate the Order. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (2022). 5. Plaintiff is the owner of real property located directly adjacent to the proposed biosolids and horticulture recycling facility. 6. As a property owner directly adjacent to the proposed biosolids and horticulture recycling facility, Plaintiff will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Plan and LDCs, resulting from the issuance of the Order. 7. Plaintiff, therefore, has an interest in the Order that exceeds in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. 8. Plaintiff is an “aggrieved and adversely affected party,” as defined in Section 163.3215(2), Florida Statutes (2022). 9. The Order is a “development order,” as defined in Section 163.3164, Florida Statutes (2022). 10. Defendant, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HENDRY COUNTY, are employees of HENDRY COUNTY located within the State of Florida and therefore subject to this Court’s Jurisdiction. 11. Defendant, HENDRY COUNTY, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and therefore subject to this Court’s Jurisdiction. 12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 47.011, Florida Statutes, as Hendry County is where all Defendants reside and where the property that is the subject of thislitigation is located. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS The Property 13. The property that is the subject of this case is an approximately 253.13 acre parcel located north of Wainwright road along the border with Collier County, with a parcel address of 30070 County Road 858, Immokalee, Florida 34142. Parcel ID Number: 1-31-47-07-A00- 001.0000 (The “Property”). The Development Order 14. On April 26, 2022, County, through the Commission, adopted Resolution No. 2022-24, which approved the special exception on the Property. 15. Hendry County Resolution No. 2022-24, was rendered, meaning it was filed with the Clerk of the County Commission on May 2, 2022. 16. — Resolution No. 2022-24 is a Development Order under Section 163.3164(7), Florida Statutes (2022) that pursuant to Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes (2022) must be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and must meet all other criteria enumerated by the local government. 17. The Order improperly approved by the County on May 2, 2022, grants a special exception for a processing use on a portion of the subject property to construct a biosolids and horticulture recycling facility. 18. The Property is currently zoned General Agriculture (A-2) with Future Land Use Classification (FLUC) of Agriculture. The type of intended use as a biosolids and horticulture recycling facility is considered “agricultural processing” which requires a special exception approval from the County. The 253.13-acre portion of the property will contain areas for horticultural material storage, material grinding, horticultural material and biosolid composting.Hendry County Comprehensive Plan 19. Pursuant the Local Comprehensive Planning Act, Chapter 163 Part II, Florida Statutes, County adopted on March 5, 1991, the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has regularly been amended since that date. 20. | The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of the community which helps dictate appropriate zoning and development standards for properties in Hendry County. The proposed special exception must comply with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. 21. | The Development Order violates provisions, goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan including those specifically set forth below. 22. The County revised the goals, objectives, and policies in order to provide, among other things: I. The orderly and timely conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses in appropriate locations and sustainable forms, while discouraging urban sprawl and directing incompatible land uses away from important natural systems and listed species; Il. Utilization of creative land use techniques establishing both baseline standards and incentive-based programs to balance agricultural viability, natural resource preservation, and protection of private property rights. 23. | The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision, because it does not direct incompatible land uses away from important natural systems and listed species, ensure the protection of conservation features, promote compatibility with the adjacent residential areas, and ensure the protection of private property rights. 24. In evaluating the existing land use patterns and policies, each land use district criteria is required to be consistent with County land use development regulations. The first goal of the Plan states:Toe vie the development and maintenance of a functional and well related pattern of land use types that provides for population growth, land development and redevelopment, and the appropriate distribution, location and densities and intensities of use consistent with adequate services and facilities and consideration of natural resources. 25. The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision, because the proposed land use type does not provide for population growth, and the intensity of the use is not consistent the consideration of natural resources. 26. The purpose of the conservation element of the Comprehensive Plan is set forth in Goal 5, which states: The purpose of the Conservation Element is to provide for the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of natural resources within Hendry County. 27. The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision, because the proposed land use type would impact the air quality, release pathogens and risk the spreading of infections. 28. The quality of the air in Hendry County is very good. The County currently has no air quality categories for which it has nonattainment status under the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. However, the development order granting of a proposed use as a biosolids composting facility, is expected to generate odor and dust from its operations. The potential for odors is expected to be higher in the summer months. 29. In compliance with the requirements set forth in F.A.C 62.640-600(1a) and 40 CFR Part 503, all compost derived from the treated biosolids marketed and applied to land must adhere to pathogen reduction requirements. The process must achieve the Class AA status with the goal of reducing the level of pathogens to where they are undetectable and not able to spread infections. 30. The purpose of the traffic circulation element is to establish the actions necessary to provide and maintain a safe, convenient, and efficient traffic circulation system in HendryCounty, to meet the needs of the County's existing development and projected future growth together with Goal 8 - To achieve and maintain a coordinated, balanced traffic circulation system within Hendry County for the convenient, safe, effective and efficient movement of people and goods. 31. | The Development Order is inconsistent with this provision and Goal 8, because the proposed land use type is expected to generate an additional 104 daily trips of commercial vehicles delivering biosolids to the Winget property. Winget’s own commissioned trip study evidences this impact. 32. Further, Goal 12, and objectives 12.1 and 12.2 address Henry County’s tourist- oriented economy. Specifically, Goal 12 states, “Hendry County will strive to achieve and maintain a diversified and stable economy by providing a positive business climate that assures maximum employment opportunities while maintaining a high quality of life.” OBJECTIVE 12.1: Hendry County will promote the conservation and enhancement of natural, cultural, and social resources that represent the County’s agriculture, retirement, recreation, and tourist-oriented economy. OBJECTIVE 12.2: Hendry County will support programs that are designed to expand and enhance the tourism industry. 33. | The Development Order is inconsistent with this Goal and objectives, because the proposed land use type is expected to generate severe odors, pathogens and the risk of spreading infections. This would directly impact Plaintiff's property which a portion of which is a tourist destination as a private gun club and training facility, in operation for over seven years, with 350,000 square feet of buildings approved by the federal government the training of special operations, contractors, military units and related activities. Hendry County Land Development Code 34. In order to approve a special exception, Section 1-51-6.3 sets forth the Standardsfor action by the Commission, and requires that the approval of a special exception application shall be granted by the board of county commissioners only upon finding that: I. The proposed uses and structures would not violate the land uses, densities, or other directives of the adopted comprehensive plan or of this code. Il. | The proposed uses and structures would not be incompatible with the uses, structures and activities on adjacent and nearby lands. Ill. | The proposed uses and structures would not violate the health, safety, welfare, and/or convenience of those residing, working or owning land in the vicinity of the proposed use or structure, specifically with respect to: vi. vii. The use or structure would not exceed the applicable density or bulk regulations except as specifically authorized, nor shall the use or structure result in overcrowding of land or buildings; The use or structure would not impair pedestrian or vehicular movement in adjoining streets so as to violate adopted level of service standards; The use or structure would not create a fire hazard; The use or structure would not result in noise, odor, glare, vibration, or other similar characteristic which is detectable at the property line and which exceeds the level which will result from permitted uses; The use or structure would not prevent an adjoining landowner from the legal use of his property pursuant to this code; The use or structure would not violate a requirement or limitation of any applicable state or federal law or regulation; and The use or structure would not result in the inadequacy or inability of any public facility or service to meet adopted standards. 35. | As mandated in Section 1-51-6.3, the special exception can only be granted upon a finding by the Commission that the proposed use meets the required standards. In this case, the Development Order application failed to meet the standards set forth in 1-51-6.3(2) and (3)(d) and (). 36. The Development Order does not comply with the mandatory requirementsprescribed in Sec. 1-51-6.2 (c), and Sec. 1-51-6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDCs. In fact, the testimony at the hearing established that the proposed special exception is not compatible with the uses, structures and activities on adjacent and nearby lands, and it is indisputable that the special exception permitting a biosolids facility will be quite odorous. 37. | The Commission, in approving the Development Order, failed to evaluate the impacts of the proposed biosolid facility as required by Sec. 1-51-6.3(3) of the County's LDCs, including incompatibility “with the uses, structures and activities on adjacent and nearby lands; the use or structure would not result in noise, odor, glare, vibration, or other similar characteristic which is detectable at the property line and which exceeds the level which will result from permitted uses; the use or structure would not prevent an adjoining landowner from the legal use of his property pursuant to this code.” In fact, the Planning Director’s presentation during the Commission’s quasi-judicial hearing was abruptly cut off following a mere description of where the property is located. 38. Lastly, the Commission, in approving the Development Order, failed to comply with the review criteria prescribed in Sec. 1-51-6.3(3) of the County's LDCs for special exceptions. The proposed biosolids facility will adversely affect property values in the surrounding area. In fact, the Staff Report is shockingly silent as to any mention of odor when addressing the criteria in Sec. 1-51-6.3(3)(d), simply stating, that “It is not anticipated the proposed uses will result in glare, vibration, or other similar characteristic detectable at the property line, provided the conditions herein are met. Approval of the Special Exception does not authorize any violation of the County’s noise ordinance.” 39. Instead of addressing the special exception’s potential effect on the surrounding area, the staff report and Winget’s application consisted of wholly irrelevant and conclusorystatements. In addressing the criteria in Sec. 1-51-6.3(3)(e), the Staff Report provides a generic response stating, that “The proposed use will not prevent the adjacent property owners from utilizing their properties.” 40. | The County's issuance of the Order is inconsistent with the Plan and Section 1-51- 6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDC for Special Exceptions, which provides that the Commission shall utilize the review criteria as applicable in the consideration of all special exception applications. 41. | The Order approved a Special Exception to allow an agricultural processing use on a portion of the subject property to construct a biosolids and horticulture recycling facility. The on-site conditions expressly permitted in the Order approving the special exception were shockingly devoid of any mention of odors. (Exhibit “A”). 42. There does not appear in the Order or in the Commission' s consideration of the biosolids and horticulture recycling facility any analysis or determination by or for the Commission of sensory impacts from the special exception's biosolids processing such as odor and pollution on the contiguous and surrounding area. 43. The biosolids and horticulture recycling facility's use will have an unreasonable, incompatible impact on the contiguous and surrounding areas, including the Plaintiff’s property, in respect to odor, pollution, business impacts, and traffic. 44. In accordance with the Plan, and Section 1-51-6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDC, the special exception should not have been approved by the Commission. 45. For the reasons stated in this Complaint, the Order approving the special exception is inconsistent with the Plan and Section 1-51-6.3(2)(3)(d)(e) of the County's LDC and will result in irreparable harm, injury and damage to the Plaintiff and its property interests.COUNT I - DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 46. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Local Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (“Local Comprehensive Planning Act”), requires each local government in Florida to prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan containing mandatory elements that address important issues such as land use, traffic circulation, conservation, coastal zone management, and the adequacy of facilities and infrastructure. 47. After a local government has adopted its comprehensive plan, Section 163.3194(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022), requires that all actions taken in regard to Development Orders shall be consistent with the adopted local comprehensive plan. 48. Section 163.3194(3), Fla. Stat. (2004), defines “consistency” as follows: I. A development or land development regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspect of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. Il. A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, or other aspects of the development are compatible with or further the objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government. 49. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes provides for citizen enforcement of the consistency mandate set forth in Section 163.3194 Fla. Stat. (2022). Section 163.3215(1), Fla. Stat. (2022) provides that “any aggrieved or adversely affected party” may bring a civil action for injunctive or other relief against any local government to prevent the local government “from taking any action on a Development Order which materially alters the use or density or intensity of use” on property in a manner that is not consistent with the adopted local comprehensive plan.50. | The Development Order materially alters the use or density or intensity of land and is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, including the provisions cited above in violation of Section 163.3194, Fla. Stat. (2022). 51. Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm because it is undisputed that the establishment of a neighboring biosolid waste facility will produce offensive odors that will create a nuisance to Plaintiff's property, an establish gun club and tourist location. 52. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because the County’s Development Order is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan in violation of Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes. Moreover, it is clear that the County failed to take adequate steps as required by Florida Law to ensure that the proposed development would not create an incompatible impact on the contiguous and surrounding areas, including the Plaintiff's property, in respect to odor, pollution, business impacts, and traffic. 53. There is no adequate remedy of law available to Plaintiff because real property is unique, Plaintiff has established a long-standing reputation within the community as a popular tourist destination and gun club, and no amount of monetary damages would be capable of remedying to nuisance(s) and reputational damage that Plaintiff’s property is likely to suffer from should a neighboring biosolid waste facility be constructed. 54. The threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs any possible harm to Defendants because Defendants will suffer no harm from this Court’s issuance of an injunction specifically precluding the establishment of a biosolid waste facility neighboring Plaintiff's Property because the issuance of a temporary injunction would merely amount to a requirement that the County comply with all aspects of its Land Development Codes and Comprehensive Plans, and the County likely has alternative locations upon which a biosolid waste facility may be conducted. Conversely,Plaintiff's stand to suffer from (1) odorous and noise nuisances that are likely to permeate Plaintiff's property while exceeding standards allowed by the County’s Code; and (2) reputational damage to Plaintiff's property as a popular tourism venue and outdoor gun club which is likely to oceur in the presence of odor and noise nuisances. 55. | The Granting of a Temporary Injunction will not disserve the public interest here because the County’s Development order is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Section 163.3194, requires that a development order be consistent with a comprehensive plan. This Court’s issuance of a temporary injunction would serve the public interest by enforcing the requirements of Florida Statutes and precluding the County’s enforcement and application of its Development Order that is not consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. 56. Plaintiff proposes a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 should it be later determined that a Temporary Injunction was issued improperly, which it will not be. As explained in detail above, plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims here because the County’s Development Order is inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan as required by Florida Law. Resultingly, it is unlikely that a temporary injunction issued in favor of Plaintiff here would be improperly issued. 57. The Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent to this action and informed the County of their opposition to the special exception prior to issuance of the Development Order. 58. The Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the Development Order as a matter of law because it is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and it does not meet the review criteria set forth in the County’s Land Development Code. Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. et al., v. Shidel, 802 So.2d 486 (Fla. 4° DCA 2001), affirmed 821 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2004).WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands a judgment from this Court for the following relief: A. That this Court declare that the Development Order is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the review criteria set forth in the County’s Land Development Code. B. That this Court enter permanent injunctive relief directing Hendry County to rescind and annul the Development Order. C. That this Court issue such further orders as it deems just and practicable and award Plaintiffs the costs of this action. GOVERNMENT LAW GROUP PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff 200 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 601 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 909-0592 Email: AKipnis@govlawgroup.com Rdewitt@govlawgroup.com LMyers@govlawgroup.com By: /s/ Alan G. Kipnis Alan G. Kipnis Florida Bar No. 181788 Richard J. Dewitt Florida Bar No. 879711EXHIBIT "A" Kimberley Barrineaw Clerk of Circuit Court, Hendry County P.O. Box 1760 LaBelle, Florida 33975 Telephone 863-675-5217 Fax 863-675-5238 May 17, 2022 Mark Lapp, County Attorney PO Box 2340 LaBelle, FL 33975 Re: Resolution 2022-24 Dear Mr. Lapp; The Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County, Florida, for a Special Exception to allow agricultural processing for a biosolids composting facility was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 26, 2022 and assigned the number: Resolution 2022-24. The Clerk, Kimberley Barrineau, was out of town the entire week from April 25-29, 2022 attending New Clerk Academy. She signed the documents from the April 26" meeting upon her return on May 2, 2022. I have checked my records and with the Clerk to verify the date of her signature on Resolution 2022-24. The resolution is attached to this letter. Sincerely, Anite, Be Anita Bischel Deputy ClerkCOUNTY OF HENDRY, STATE OF FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - _24 RECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV___, PAGE 172 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING FOR A BIOSOLIDS COMPOSTING FACILITY. WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of Hendry County has heretofore held a public hearing on April 13, 2022, on an application for a Special Exception filed by Winget Mill Composting, LLC represented by Rocky Robbins (HEARING NO. SE21-0001), and given its recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County, Florida, regarding the Special Exception set forth hereafter; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County, Florida, has held a public hearing this day to hear any and all comments and evidence relating to the application for said Special Exception. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County, Florida, that: 1. The Board hereby finds and determines that the requested Special Exception meets the provisions of Section 1-51-6.3 of the Hendry County Land Development Regulations, and is hereby granted. 2. The application by Winget Mill Composting, LLC (HEARING NO. SE21-0002) is limited to the parcels identified by strap number: 1 31 48 07 A00 0001.0000, described as: Legal Description: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 31 EAST, HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA. THENCE NORTH 00°51'44" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 7, A DISTANCE OF 110.49 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE NORTH 00°51'44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,491.15 FEET, TO A POINT 20! SOUTHERLY OF THE APPROXIMATE CENTER OF A PRIVATE ROAD, THE FIVE FOLLOWING COURSE; THENCE NORTH 82°45'04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2.20 FEET; TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH; THENCE 85.63 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°15'29", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS, SOUTH 83°37'11" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 84.83 FEET TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 69°59'27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 245.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72°40'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 163.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69°15'28" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,749.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID 20' OFFSET LINE, SOUTHRECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV PAGE 173 23°37'02" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 504.78 FEET; TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST; THENCE 312.64 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 325.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55°07'02", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 03°56'29" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 300.73 FEET, TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 31°30'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 931.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 09°33'59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 513.18 FEET; TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST; THENCE 670.50 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 475.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 80°52'39", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 41°08'01" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 616.20 FEET, TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 00°41'42" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,905.32 FEET, TO INTERSECT WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE SOUTH 88°38'28" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 7, A DISTANCE OF 41.52 FEET, TO THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER, THENCE 2,570.75 FEET; TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH; THENCE 74.23 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 147.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°55'52", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 76°19'48" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 73.44 FEET TO THE END OF THE CURVE AND TO INTERSECT WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 7; THENCE NORTH 00°47'44" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,476.37 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 46°42'34" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 103.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79°57'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 225.03 FEET; TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST; THENCE 56.89 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 72°26'05", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 43°48'38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 53.18 FEET TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE NORTH 07°35'35" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 28°35'45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 367.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01°04'33" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 687.21 FEET; TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST; THENCE 40.93 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°11'21", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 44°01'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 36.83 FEET TO THE END OF THE CURVE; THENCE NORTH 89°06'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 525.03 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 253.13 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 3. Development shall be in substantial compliance with the Conceptual Development Plan last revised 2/24/2022 (Exhibit A). 4. Hours of Operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. 5. Type “D” buffers shall be required between the Horticultural Material Composting, storage, and grinding areas and the adjacent right-of-way or access easement to shield the storage areas from view. Grinding activities shall be set back from the property line 150 feet. 7. Material storage piles shall not exceed 18 feet in height and interior lanes between stockpiled compost shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. a 2RECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV PAGE 174 8. The Horticulture recycling operations must meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) | Fire Code, Chapter 31. In addition, the required SDP shall include the following information: a. Details on how the horticulture recycling facility meets the requirements of NFPA | Chapter 31. b. An operational plan. c. Details on the water supply provided for firefighting needs. d. Access roads with an unobstructed width of not less than 20 ft. pursuant to NFPA 1 Uniform Fire Code, Florida Edition 18.2.3.4.1.1 and a stabilized roadway around the piles and at the point of access to the property. e. Prior to operations starting, a fire inspection of the facility and equipment shall be required. 9. A Site Development Plan and Building Permits must be approved prior to any horticultural recycling operations. 10. Subsurface conditions and soil types shall be sufficient to accommodate the loads and stresses of the proposed facilities. 11. Impacts to wetlands, protected wildlife species, and habitat shall not exceed those allowed by state and federal agencies. 12. Safeguards must be provided to ensure that any negative impact on air quality shall not exceed state or federal regulations. 13. Safeguards must be provided to ensure that state and federal surface water and groundwater contamination regulations are not exceeded. 14. All exotic plant species as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council shall be removed from the property in perpetuity. 15. If, during site clearing, excavation, or other construction activity, a historic or archaeological artifact, or other indicator is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped. The County Engineering Department is to be notified of such discovery. 16. Signage shall be in compliance with LDC Section 1-56. 17. Copies of all required state and federal agency permits, including a Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit, must be provided to Hendry County Planning & Zoning Department. 18. Approval of this special exception does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. Done and adopted this 26" day of April, 2022. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS E HENDRY COUNTY, FLORIDA Ri ignberley Baie. Clerk & ee ChEXHIBIT A RECORDED IN RESOLUTION BOOK XXXV PAGE 175 ‘c\veen\soeisp\ApetLocahtemp\AcPblsh4964\6141. Ot Conceptul Development Plan dng Feb 24, 2022-1000um Lay Mame: By SVE amex cco” L-—_—J “EY cm | ES [2 Tana aloe ‘re ocamion y a AS ae LOCATION SKETCH