Airport Improvement Program August 3, 1988

Home

, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Response to Comments of Leonard, Street and Deinard, Attorneys for Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. Dated April 28, 1988 Re: Gateway Airport EID The comments referenced by Leonard, Street, and Deinard dating from 1987 regarding Airport Safety Zoning have previously been responded to and are attached hereto. 1. Vertical expansion of existing fill. While the Metropolitan Council has issued a Certificate of Need, that action in and of itself, does not constitute approval of the proposed expansion. The City's position consistently has been that the landfill/landfill expansion must be compatible with surrounding land uses, not that surrounding land uses must conform to uses deemed compatible with a landfill. Metropolitan Council senior staff have been quoted as indicating that if Flying cloud sanitary Landfill is expanded, it may reduce the number of additional metropolitan area landfills from three to one. 2. The merits of expansion of the Anoka Sanitary Landfill have yet to receive approval. As WMMI is well aware, MPCA recently declined to approve the Detailed Action Report for remedial cleanup at the landfill until, among other items, an alternative was presented which did not presume expansion. 3. The City has repeatedly stated to the County, Metropolitan Council and MPCA its position relative to conflicts with solid waste management. There are conflicts among state statutes and regional policies which the City recognizes but has little control over. Regarding the discussion of development limitations, as you are aware, they apply only to development proposed within a candidate site and buffer. Regarding City ordinances, refer to Minnesota stat. 473.811 subd. 4a and MR7035.1000 subp. 2 and response to Anoka County comments. The proposed airport improvements interfere no more with the landfill siting process than should the existing airport. If the proposed landfill is not compatible due to the proposed airport improvements, then perhaps the candidate site is not compatible with the existing airfield nor consistent with federal, state or regional aviation [laws, regulations and policies] or landfill siting policies. The City's position is that the burden of proof is on the approving agencies to show that a new landfill is compatible with all existing and planned uses. Should those uses be jeopardized, the City obviously would'be impacted even more negatively by the landfill siting effort. 4. Refer to the comments above. 5. The Airport Safety Zoning Ordinance was subject to a referendum election of April 19, 1988. The election results were opposed to the ordinance. The City currently is reviewing a number of options available to it. 9-21