The city took this action in response to the installation of artificial turf at the home of Ed Ehlen, 616 Crescent Street, and the knowledge that other installations exist, and more might be considered.
Following an exchange of information by city staff and representatives speaking both on behalf of artificial turf and against it, the planning board voted 5-1, with member Monte Lazarus dissenting, to approve the amendment to forbid the use of artificial turf. Member William Patterson was absent.
As current forms of synthetic turf are relatively new and lacking in scientific data, the board requested a condition, directing city staff to study the turf for a period of three years.
|
|
After a natural rainfall and other tests involving the application of water, city staff observed the rubber crumb, used as infill to "fluff" the grass strands, floating off the property where it was placed. Staff said the small bits of rubber were on the street, surrounding the property, and washing eventually into the stormwater system that emptied into the canals and waterways.
Ed Ehlen has maintained that the synthetic turf reduces water consumption, use of pesticides, fungicides and fertilizer, requires low maintenance, and produces a lush and healthy looking yard year round.
Marco Island City Planner Bryan Milk said the city ordinance that provided for non-organic ground covers referred to stone and gravel, pavers and flagstones - not synthetic materials, artificial turf or petroleum-based products.
Milk also said that residents installing landscaping often do not understand the concept of Xeriscape (from the Greek word xeros meaning "dry"), which means, "The conservation of water and energy through creative landscaping, using plants that can live, once established, with little or no supplemental watering. Some are drought tolerant."
When questioned by board members about other residents who have synthetic turf, Milk said it was installed after the houses had certificates of occupancy (CO). At one house, the turf had been installed by a new owner (William Young, 490 Renard Court) and in another case, Milk believed no permit had been sought for landscaping done following the issuance of a CO (Robert Fairchild at 1115 Mulberry Court).
In Ehlen's case, following the city's protest, he removed the artificial turf from the right-of-way only. The city has not yet given him a CO, pending this ordinance amendment.
The board agreed to consider the question of artificial turf based on environmental rather than political or aesthetic criteria, agreeing that there are many different types of turf and they did not want to discuss the Ehlen landscaping specifically.
Milk said he had researched many different locations where artificial turf is used and found that most of them were arid, desert locations such as Nevada, Arizona and parts of California.
"In a sub-tropical environment such as Florida's," Milk said, "it's mostly forbidden because the standards for application interfere with stormwater management. We also worry about the oxygen exchange. This turf creates a barrier over oxygen-producing plants."
Milk went on to explain that after a heavy rain, natural sod absorbs the water and retains it temporarily, allowing the moisture to seep into the earth, be cleansed by the soil, and enter the water table gradually. During a heavy rainfall, artificial turf, with its perforations, allows a quicker runoff with little time for treatment, Milk said.
"Artificial turf holds different pollutants," Milk said. "It's unlike grass that allows animal deposits to be cleansed."
Member Monte Lazarus asked if the saving and conservation of water would be significant.
Milk called it "a lesser concern," saying the city would be introducing gray water reclamation or a reusable water program for landscaping.
He also stated that the DEP was withholding comment on the specific situation at the moment.
City Environmental Expert Nancy Richie said she had contacted the DEP, and they were concerned with the effect of 100 percent vulcanized rubber chips in the stormwater outfall, as "any manmade discharge is considered pollution."
She said the DEP has six criteria for raising a concern, and the pellets meet four of them:
* Do they settle to the bottom to form a putrescent deposit?
* Do they float?
* Do they produce color, odor, taste or turbidity?
* Are they toxic?
* Are carcinogens present?
* Do they present a serious hazard to health?
Ehlen's attorney, Louis Amato, later claimed this was insufficient proof to ban the use of rubber crumb.
Richie pointed out that landfills in Collier County no longer accept rubber tires and that sooner or later, when the synthetic grass and its pellets have to be replaced, there could be a problem with their disposal.
Richie said that most of the data available on turf referred to its use in large sports facilities like football fields and not single-family homes.
"In those situations," she said, "research information shows the synthetic material generate a high level of heat and need canopy shade trees."
"On the flip side," she said, "our lawns of natural sod constantly absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, an exchange that is vital to us and to animals. Grass absorbs heat, filters dust, dirt and allergens."
"It's a totally different situation in our city," Richie said. "You can't compare it with an arid, urban, mountainous area."
Planning Board Chairman Marv Needles asked Richie if tires were still used in artificial reefs, and she replied that it had been an old practice in the 1970s and '80s, but currently only construction rubble like cement is allowed.
Needles asked about different methods of anchoring the turf and the pros and cons of pesticides and chemicals.
Member Paula Camposano-Robinson commented on the lack of "real scientific evidence."
Richie said she was not an expert on synthetic grass but had studied the pros and cons of both marketers and non-marketers of the products.
"Other methods of anchoring it include a mixture of silica/sand," Richie said. "Any filling of the waterways or canals with loose sand creates a dredging problem in our waterways. It's a big concern."
"Following storm events, the nutrient levels in our canals rise from the runoff, filling the canals with insoluble substances that can float and create algae blooms," Richie said. "It's true that you may not have to use as many chemicals, but even synthetic grasses have to be cleaned to maintain their appearances - and that's another chemical."
Richie conducts regular water quality sampling tests on the city's waterways and canals.
Member Van VanHoesen said after he had read all the literature by staff and proponents of synthetic turf, he felt the greatest advantage of synthetic turf was less fertilizer runoff.
Richie agreed but advised that herbicides were still needed to control weeds growing though synthetic turf and getting rid of septic tanks would also be a positive factor in reducing pollution.
She said, however, that landscapes with synthetic turf still require irrigation systems and water for the trees and shrubs needed to protect the area from heat.
Richie cited information from Sod Growers of America, the Environmental Protection Agency, marketers of turf and the DEP.
Robert Fairchild of 1115 Mulberry Court said he installed artificial turf three years ago in his front yard only, in an area of about 30 square feet.
"I didn't do it in the swale," he said. "It's not my property."
Fairchild said he had saved money on water bills, cut down on noise pollution (from having to cut the lawn), and had experienced no problems or discomfort.
"If I have to take it out, I will," he said.
"There was a little problem with the pellets," Fairchild said. "Artificial turf should not be put near the seawall."
Rick Kelley of PermaLife Products, distributor of crumb rubber, said "The DEP is as concerned about waterways as the United States Fish and Wildlife, and their lack of participation indicates that (rubber pellets in the waterways) is not a significant problem."
Kelley said, "Infill holds the moisture," when asked by the board about its application, and when member VanHoesen quoted the vice president of Kelley's company saying he would strongly recommend its use only in sports applications, Kelley replied, "It's used for buoyancy."
VanHoesen then asked, "With its one-quarter inch holes every four inches, with infill, will water go through the Sprinturf and/or sheet flow over it?"
"It's so good in terms of permeability, football teams can play back to back in monsoons," Kelley replied.
When asked, Kelley said there were no independent scientific studies to corroborate what he had said.
Louis Amato, Ehlen's attorney, said "it doesn't make sense" to use pesticides, herbicides and fungicides in surface groundwater instead of the rubber pellets that he claimed were non-toxic and inert.
"The code already deals with it," Amato said. "Non-toxic ground covers cannot exceed 20 percent from people who know what they are talking about."
Agronomist John McShane, an employee of Sprinturf, manufacturer of Ehlen's grass, said most studies of synthetic grass are based on Astroturf, "a Brillo pad neon green branded type of turf that is now banned. This is a fourth generation product. Without infill, it drains at a rate of two inches per hour. With infill, it's six inches per hour."
McShane explained that on small lots, the turf could be separated from a neighbor's property with natural grass by a four-by-four buffer that would prevent the turf being picked up by a mower. He said that approximately one ton of rubber crumb was used to hold down 1,000 square feet of turf, and that Ehlen's property had approximately three tons of rubber crumb on it. In response to questions, McShane said the turf had been used in other locations in Florida, but he did not elaborate. When asked about the rubber pellets moving McShane said, "Once they're applied, they interlock."
Briefly mentioning the harmful leaching caused by pesticides, McShane added, "You can't replace natural turf in my eyes."
"I'm not disagreeing with claims that the rubber crumb is not toxic or carcinogenic," City Environmental Expert Nancy Richie said. "The questions that should be raised are does the community want rubber crumb incorporated in our environment, how will this impact the canals, streets and stormwater system and is it legal to do so?
"The problem with introducing a manmade, petroleum-based product into Marco Island's natural system - a system that includes over 100 miles of waterways connected to the beautiful white-sand beach and the reason most of us are driven to live here - is that this non-soluble rubber is considered pollution when discharged into surface waters of the State of Florida," Richie said. "The characteristics are contrary to one expert's opinions that the rubber crumb does not dislodge from the plastic grass mat, that it does not float, or that it is biodegradable.
"When water from the water truck was used and also when natural rainfall occurred, the rubber crumb did dislodge, floated up and was shed with the rest of the water to the stormwater system right into the canal," Richie said. "When discussing the general aspects of the rubber crumb, it was interesting that one of the homeowners who has had the artificial turf for three years stated very strongly several times in his testimony that he would never place this product by his seawall.
"What wasn't answered is how often the rubber crumb needs to be replaced, and how to dispose of the mat and rubber crumb properly," Richie said.
Milk said he plans to have the amended version of the ordinance ready for the next planning board meeting at 9 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 11.
