Laserfiche WebLink
Merland Otto - Replied that the existing landfill can operate up to a <br />certain da~a¢~,ty and under the airport zoning ordinance, the landfill would <br />be allowed tO continue to operate up to that permitted capacity. If <br />airport moning is adopted, the operators would have to come to the City for <br />a permit ~in oCder to get approval to expand the existing landfill. FAA has <br />indicated thee will not fund the airport project as long as a landfill is <br />in operation Within 5,000 feet of the airport. Looking at all statutes <br />applicable, t~e Solid Waste Management Act passed in 1980, virtually has <br />allowed ~h~ authority to site landfills without respect to local laws as <br />well as County laws and Metro Council policy. Whether the Act exempted <br />them from ~th~r previous State statutes is foggy. The Act did not exclude <br />them from ~ed~ral regulations, particularly those with respect to airports. <br />Site P would ~nd should not be a lawful site with an airport as it exists <br />and particularly if the airport would be improved. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that between now and August 25, Ramsey will respond to <br />public's c~mments; the responses will be read to Council on August 25. <br />Followin§ ~helhearing on August 25, Council may adopt the airport zoning <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley p~oceeded to read written comments received from Leonard, <br />Street and Deinard, the law firm representing Waste Management of <br />Minnesota,~In¢. In summary, that letter raised the following concerns: 1) <br />The City canmot adopt the ordinance without prior approval of the <br />Metropolitan ~ouncil because of State statute which imposes development <br />limitation~ on sites which have been identified for potential selection as <br />future lamdfi~ls; 2) That the airport zoning ordinance is not consistent <br />with Metropolitan solid waste policies and plans; 3) The proposed <br />ordinance ~anmot prevent Anoka County from operating Site P as a landfill <br />if Site M ~s selected; 4) The ordinance would constitute a compensible <br />taking fro~ Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. (This written statement <br />will be ~iled ~with the minutes of this public hearing.) <br /> <br />Mr. Hartte¥ proceeded to read written comments received from Mr. Steve <br />Keefe of ~heiMetro Council. In summary, that letter stated that <br />environmental ~impact statements are being prepared on Gateway North Airport <br />and on ~i~e ~ which will include discussions of their compatibility; <br />adoption of ~he airport zoning prior to completion of those eis's is <br />premature, i The letter also noted that according to State statute, adoption <br />of an ordinancle cannot remove Site ? from consideration as a candidate <br />landfill. (T~is written satement will be filed with the minutes of this <br />public heating.) <br /> <br />Ed Babcockl- ~ttorney representing Max Schwartzman and Sons - Stated that <br />the SchwartZman's own land on the south side of Hwy. #10. The <br />Schwartzm~'~ have been holding the land for many years for development <br />purposes. Mr.= Babock stated that he and his clients oppose a proposed <br />zoning ordinance that would acquire 9.3 acres under eminent domain. The <br />Schwartzmam's ~lso own a parcel that would be in Zone B that would have <br />severe r~etrictions placed on it's use. Mr. Babcock stated that his <br />clients don't believe an airport is the highest and best use of the <br />property in question. The area is already largely developed, congested and <br />not the proper site for an airport. The Schwartzman's feel that the <br />Airport Zoning Board/July 29, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />