Ocala City Council Denies Amendment to Ordinance to Allow for Aboveground Incinerator

OCALA, FL (352today.com) – The Ocala City Council, in a unanimous 5-0 vote, denied amending an ordinance to allow for the use of an aboveground air curtain incinerator as an ancillary use to a materials recovery facility at their meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026.

The legislative ordinance was for an applicant-initiated text amendment to the city’s code of ordinances, for materials recovery facilities. The new amendment would have added a subsection to permit an aboveground air curtain incinerator as by right to a materials recovery facility. Had it been approved, the amendment would have changed the city’s code of ordinances to address these types of uses citywide, said Jeff Shrum, City of Ocala growth management director. It would’ve been a citywide amendment, and not have site-specific or specific to the applicant, Friends Recycling, for this ordinance.

The air curtain incinerator would be adjacent to the West Oak Development.

“This would not be a use by right, it would be a special exception permit,” said Kristen Dreyer, Ocala City Councilwoman. “This is a quality-of-life issue. People live there.”

The applicant shared with council a video regarding the aboveground air curtain incinerator, which is a piece of equipment, like a big box, in which wood and vegetative debris is deposited and burned. The machine uses an air curtain to burn the material at a very high temperature, which reduces the smoke and the by-product from the burning, said Shrum.

They city’s ordinance does currently discuss the burning of trees on construction sites and emphasizes that the city’s policy is to encourage the wise use of trees in lieu of burning, but it does allow for burning as a disposal method, said Shrum. It’s important to understand open burning, including burning using the incinerators, is regulated by the state.

The purpose of this ordinance would’ve been to allow for these air curtain incinerators to be permanently placed on a property, where the debris would’ve been brought from other locations, and not generated from the site where they’re doing the burning, where materials would be processed at the facility location. When city staff was discussing this with the applicant, they determined that this type of use wasn’t defined by their code of ordinances as it currently reads.

Rewording the amendment

City staff worked with the applicant to develop the ordinance for the first reading, but there were several changes after the city’s planning commission meeting. After the first reading, the applicant requested a continuance at the city’s Jan. 6, 2026, meeting. City staff met with the applicant again and made some further amendments to the ordinance.

There would’ve been a minimum requirement of 10 acres to have this type of facility according to one of the proposed amendment changes to the ordinance. The appeals on the ordinance had it passed would’ve gone to the board of adjustment.

There are three locations in the City of Ocala that have materials recovery facilities: Friends Recycling, Waste Pro and Paglia and Associates. At their Nov. 10, 2025, meeting, the city’s planning commission did recommend approval of this amendment. Staff also took this to the Governor’s West meeting on Nov. 18, along with the applicant, and received no comments or objections at that time. Staff did recommend approval.

There was the question of whether or not the protection mitigations were sufficient, which ultimately played a large role in council’s denial of the request.

Attorney Fred Roberts, Jr., Klein & Klein, LLC, who was representing the applicant explained why he wished to have the ordinance amended, stating that within the city’s code there was no provision which allows or precludes the burning of this type. He noted that open burning was allowed on many sites. The process is done through Florida Forestry regulations. The applicant said the incinerators were environmentally sensitive, clean, and the by-product is much more manageable than dealing with chipping and grinding materials and the impacts that go with that. The aboveground incinerator would have been on industrial property.

Objections to the proposal 

Attorney Tim Haines, who was from the law firm of Gray, Ackerman & Haines, was representing property owner West Oak Development, regarding the former Pine Oaks Golf Course that’s being redeveloped, and is contiguous to property owned by Friends Recycling and related entities, which is actually across the road from the property, and is being developed within a quarter mile. Haines was one of a number of people who spoke out in opposition to the proposed amended ordinance change.

Haines suggested there was two ways to look at this: from a land use perspective, and from a safety and technical perspective. Haines cited that the applicant had no evidence to support that the air incinerators were safe or appropriate adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Burning large amounts of matter isn’t materials recovery, it’s material destruction, he said. The safety concerns included the burning from the incinerators may be responsible for creating a series of health hazards. There was the argument that there were no safeguards in place.

West Oak Development is revitalizing the area with 2000-plus single-family residences, said Haines. And these single-family residences are going to include at least 20 percent affordable housing under the redevelopment agreement.

“So, we’re taking what anyone would describe as a somewhat noxious use at best and doing what we often do and putting it next to people who are less affluent and have less political influence, and that’s simply inappropriate,” said Haines.

This kind of environmental issue that was brought forth for discussion, flies in the face with what the city is trying to achieve for this area, said Scott Siemens of West Oak Developers, who appreciated the city staff and council’s support and requested that the city council not approve the amendment to the ordinance.

“Seniors are very susceptible to respiratory issues,” said Siemens. “This is not appropriate for this area… Again, this doesn’t logically follow what any of us are trying to accomplish, which is affordable housing for people. This isn’t within the spirt of the partnership between the city and West Oak to create affordable housing.”