Laserfiche WebLink
Development Guide policy and local comprehensive plans represent a consensus of public attitudes <br />and values, since they have been developed with citizen participation and adopted through the public <br />hearing process. To the extent practical, conflicts with planned land uses like agricultural preserves <br />and parks will be avoided. In some cases, it may be desirable to locate waste facilities adjacent to or <br />as part of the operation of other metropolitan facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants. Once <br />closed, waste sites may be appropriate locations for other planned uses. For example, park <br />development may be possible at closed waste facilities. <br /> <br />Integrating facility site development with locally planned land uses, however, may be difficult. Recent <br />Metropolitan Area siting efforts have demonstrated the difficulty in finding locally acceptable <br />locations for waste facilities. Waste facilities rarely meet local land use planning requirements. <br />Override of local vetoes may be necessary in some circumstances. The Waste Management Act gives <br />counties the authority to override local vetoes to establish waste processing and land disposal facilities <br />(Minn. Stat., sec. 473.811, subd. 4a and sec. 473.823, subd. 5). The Council must approve the <br />override. <br /> <br />Landfills arouse particularly strong local opposition because their potential size, height, and <br />contamination risks could affect many people. Legislation and court decisions across the country <br />since 1980 have established a balancing doctrine that state or regional needs may preempt host <br />community controls provided that state regulation is comprehensive and policy intent is clcar. Thus <br />state regulation and regional oversight should set thc context for allowable activities in sites and <br />buffer areas in conjunction with appropriate local regulation, zon~ag, conditional usc permits and fees <br />to reimburse direct costs of local governments. Buffer area property owners currently retain their <br />rights to maintain existing land uses_ even though their_ rights, to ~develop~,, ~ arc limited by:. a requircm_ ~nt- <br />for Council and county approvar, l An appeals process o[ zoning ovemae should d~.ourage local <br />commumtles la'om using zoning authority to unreasonably delay, discourage or decline controversial <br />waste manage,m, ent projects. , <br /> <br />Objectives <br /> <br />4a. <br /> <br />Assure that proposed waste facilities are located in areas compatible, to the extent possible, <br />with local land use plans, and existing and planned metropolitan systems and utilities. <br /> <br />4b. Assure that local land use concerns are considered in reviewing facility proposals. <br /> <br />Assure that land disposal facilities do not visually dominate thc surrounding community to an <br />unacceptable degree. · <br /> <br />Allow implementation of needed waste management system components that comply with <br />reasonable ldi:al ordinances. <br /> <br />Ensure that necessary waste management system components are not prohibited by <br />unreasonable local ordinances and land use controls. <br /> <br />Cr/terfia <br /> <br />aa. <br /> <br />Solid waste facilities should be compatible, to the extent possible, with Council land use <br />policies and county and local comprehensive land use plans. Lack of compatibility with land <br /> <br />75 <br /> <br /> <br />