Broward commission approves land‑use changes for Monarch Hill amid wide public opposition and calls to delay

The Broward County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 25 approved a package of land‑use and code changes that clear legal pathways for Waste Management’s proposed horizontal and vertical expansions at the Monarch Hill landfill and enacted related limits on what may be disposed above certain heights.

The measures the board acted on were considered together during a lengthy public hearing that drew dozens of speakers from nearby cities and communities. The public record included formal submissions from the cities of Coconut Creek and Deerfield Beach, municipal staff, environmental engineers, and long‑time residents who said the landfill’s continued growth threatens air quality, groundwater and property values.

What the board approved - Ordinances to amend the county comprehensive plan and land‑use map to allow the proposed horizontal expansion (agenda items 33 and 34). The board approved amended motions that condition the effectiveness of the land‑use amendments on Waste Management’s execution and recordation of declarations of restrictive covenants and on the terms of a county‑industry agreement distributed as additional material. - An ordinance limiting certain waste types from being landfilled above specified heights (agenda item 35). That ordinance was adopted unanimously. - A code text amendment to increase the maximum permitted landfill height in the A‑6 (agricultural disposal) zoning district, subject to commitments by Waste Management (agenda item 36). - A separate contract amendment (Wheelabrator third amendment, agenda item 37) that extends the county’s incineration disposal agreement under certain conditions; that amendment passed with one dissenting vote.

Board members and staff stressed that the approvals are subject to multiple conditions and state environmental permitting. County staff told the board that many environmental safeguards would still be required and that any vertical or horizontal expansion must meet current state and federal environmental rules before construction or acceptance of additional municipal solid waste. County staff also noted an 18‑month option period tied to a proposed purchase option for the horizontal expansion. Staff warned that approving only the horizontal or only the vertical expansion would materially reduce some pledged benefits from Waste Management — notably the host‑fee revenue that would be available only if both expansions are approved.

Public comment and concerns Speakers opposing the approvals urged delay until the Solid Waste Authority (SWA) completes a regional master plan and until the cities’ outstanding technical and water‑quality concerns are addressed. Common themes from opponents included: - Health and water‑quality risks from older landfill cells and concern about long‑term groundwater contamination. - Odor and air‑quality impacts reported by residents near the site and the claim that older cells predate modern lining standards. - A perception that promises made to communities in past years — including prior statements that further expansions would not occur — were not kept. - Calls for stronger requirements in the proposed county ordinances (for example, increased setbacks, new groundwater studies, and mandatory upgrades of nonconforming cells before any new vertical expansion).

City and local government voices included Deerfield Beach officials and the City of Coconut Creek. Deerfield’s mayor and planning staff told the commission the amendments are inconsistent with local comprehensive plan guidance and planning‑council advice; Coconut Creek’s assistant city attorney said the city had proposed specific code edits — including additional setbacks, groundwater study requirements, and a requirement that nonconforming cells be brought into full compliance — that the county did not adopt.

Supporters of the approvals, including representatives with past Solid Waste Authority roles and some municipal officials, argued the county must secure reliable disposal capacity for the region and that alternative options (new sites, rail or long‑distance hauling) are costly, uncertain and would raise disposal costs for residents. Supporters also noted Waste Management had offered financial commitments and measures intended to reduce odors, capture landfill gas, and fund recycling and education programs; county officials said those commitments are incorporated into the conditional approval documents and related agreements.

Votes and formal outcomes (in the public record) - Agenda item 33 (small‑scale amendment to the county land‑use plan map): motion carried (vote recorded in board documents as approved; effectiveness conditioned on execution and recordation of restrictive covenants and the county‑industry agreement). - Agenda item 34 (small‑scale amendment to the municipal services district future land‑use map): motion carried 5–3; effectiveness conditioned on execution and recordation of restrictive covenants and the county‑industry agreement. - Agenda item 35 (ordinance on waste limitations, county code section 14‑2, as amended): adopted unanimously. - Agenda item 36 (code amendment to increase maximum landfill height in A‑6 zoning, county code section 39‑4‑64, as amended): approved (vote recorded; board commentary indicates a 5–3 split on related land‑use items). - Agenda item 37 (third amendment to Wheelabrator agreement for solid‑waste disposal services): approved 7–1 with Vice Mayor Bogan recorded as opposed.

What remains to be done County staff and the county attorney emphasized that the approvals do not bypass state permitting. Any vertical or horizontal construction, acceptance of municipal solid waste above specified heights, or site modifications will require separate environmental permits, groundwater monitoring and compliance reviews by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and other agencies. The board and staff also noted litigation expectations: Coconut Creek had invoked the Chapter 164 pre‑litigation process and the county recorded receipt of that notice; county counsel advised that the existence of pre‑litigation does not by itself require the board to delay a decision.

Several commissioners urged that the SWA complete its regional master plan and associated environmental analysis; the SWA master plan deadline had been extended at the time of the meeting (staff noted prior due dates were moved to February then to August). Commissioners divided on whether additional delay would produce a better regional outcome or simply postpone an inevitable need for disposal capacity.

Speakers quoted in the record include: Deerfield Beach Mayor Bill Gans; Deerfield Beach assistant planning director Chris Senison; Coconut Creek deputy city manager Horace McHugh; municipal attorney Cassandra Harvey (City of Coconut Creek); environmental consultant Peter Silberman; public advocates Daniel Shanetzky and Jeffrey Bridal; Solid Waste Authority past chair Greg Ross; and numerous residents from Coconut Creek, Deerfield Beach and neighboring communities.

Clarifying numeric and technical details recorded during discussion - Proposed vertical increase discussed in testimony: from existing limits up toward 325 feet maximum in A‑6 code if amendment adopted; existing code limits cited at 25–125 feet depending on current references; opponents described the requested change as raising the site roughly 100 feet above current permitted heights for some cells. - Horizontal expansion discussed: approximately 24 additional acres referenced in public comments. - Host fee referenced by counsel/staff: $3.50 and $6.00 per ton were cited as examples in the agreement structure; staff noted host charge revenues would be roughly one‑third if only one expansion (vertical or horizontal) were approved rather than both. - Timing: staff and consultants estimated a 10‑year horizon to site, permit and bring an entirely new landfill online; recycling and advanced processing facilities were estimated by staff to take roughly 4–5 years to site and construct. - Option/purchase period: an 18‑month option period tied to certain horizontal expansion terms was discussed and retained in the agreement materials provided to the board.

The board directed conditional approvals that incorporate voluntary commitments by Waste Management and explicitly tied the land‑use and code changes to execution and recordation of restrictive covenants and the county‑industry agreement; staff said those documents were reviewed and approved in form by the county attorney for legal enforceability. Several cities signaled they would continue to pursue legal and administrative remedies, and Coconut Creek’s formal Chapter 164 notice remained on file at the time of the decision.

The vote concludes a multi‑year public process that has drawn sustained local opposition and renewed calls for a regional master plan and additional environmental review prior to any future landfill expansions.