Laserfiche WebLink
! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Motion ica~ried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners <br />Kennen,i~ Zi~merman, Deemer, Johnson, Hendriksen and LaDue. Voting <br />No: <br /> <br />Case ~2,: Me~uest For A Conditional Use Permit; Case Of Waste ~ ~anagement: <br /> <br />Chairman Peterson read aloud a letter dated July 3, 1984 from <br />Waste M~ nagement of Minnesota, Inc. to Rmmsey Planning Commission <br />and City C~ouncil. (See Attachment III). <br /> <br />Mr. Charles LeFevere - Law Firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennendy, <br />O'Brien. & Drawz - Stated that he is present to speak to the <br />draft .remedial action provision in the subject permit and <br />contract. I Mr. LeFevere stated in some senses the remedial <br />action prc~ision provides only protection afforded by State and <br />Federal~ l~w. It is possible that the protection afforded by <br />the laws ~nd regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency <br />and the? S~ate Pollution Control Agency would provide the City <br />with adequ~ate protection. Obtaining those funds would depend <br />on the 'EP~ having those funds available and their determination <br />as to the [priority of the contamination. The Super Fund can be <br />limited in a number of ways as well: 1) Can only require of <br />an enti~ty !that it comply with orders to take remedial action to <br />the ex~en~ to which that entity has financial resources; 2) Funds <br />would have~ to be available in the State Super Fund Bill for monies <br />to be 'mad9 available from the State. Currently there is not <br />$15,000,0q0 available in the entire Super Fund account. <br /> <br />Mr LeFev~re referred to a comment made at the June 25 1984 <br />publzc hearing regarding the Co~-,ission ought not to grant the <br />condi~i~on~l use permit because the City would not be gaining <br />anythir{g ~nd stated that in a sense that comment is incorrect <br />and cor-reqt. Planning and Zoning should not decide whether the <br />City §e~t ~alue in dollars; Planning Commission should determine <br />whether the proposed use is consistent with criteria set forth <br />in Cit~ o~dinances. Protections that are afforded by the draft <br />condi~{/onal use permit may be relative to Planning Commission's <br />determination. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated that his law firm was retained by the City <br />of RamSley in connection with the contract dispute between Anoka <br />and Ram. se' In as much as the proposal by Waste Management <br />potenzial y settled that lawsuit, his law firm has been drawn <br />furth~ ir~.to the issue and assisting the City Attorney with <br />consideration of this conditional use permit. <br /> <br /> Doug l~amm - 6821 152nd Avenue NW - Inquired if the money is to <br /> protect f~"om contamination from the existing landfill or the <br /> the exPanSion area? <br /> <br />Mr. LeFev~re stated that the money would cover contamination <br />from ~he ~xisting and expanded area. Protection afforded the <br />the co~di~ional use permit includes the existing site; currently, <br />that p=otection does not exist. Waste Management agrees to take <br />remedial Action, up to a limit of $15,000,000, provided the <br />condi~on~l use permit is granted. If no conditional use permit <br />were $~an~ed and leachate from the existing site was found in <br /> <br /> P & Z/July 3, 1984 Page 4 of 19 <br /> <br /> <br />