Agenda - Council - 08/11/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUISANCE ABATEMENT; HOG FARM ON PIN 14-32-25-43-0001 By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: Several citizens w~e present at the July 23, 1991 City Council meeting to submit complaints regarding th~ Od°~'ilgcn~rated at the hog farm. Basically, the oumome of that meeting was that Mr. Barthold w~ n~ot.~ violation of any City Codes and that State Statute exempts agricultural uses as odor nuiSanCe. ~.l~r: Barthold stated his hog farm has been in existence for 25 years, but he would look into waya of ~nimizing odors from his operation. On August ~3~ 1~1 I sent a letter to MPCA requesting any assistance or information they could provide to h~lp us ~solve this odor problem. In a telephone conversation, Mark Stewart of PCA indicated-that ~he~ that agency reviewed Mr. Barthold's application for a feedlot permit (which had not yet ~b~n sabrniued), they would also try to suggest methods of operation to Mr. Barthold that would reduce Odors. On Augusti29i 19~1, I spoke to Randy Ellingboe, MPCA Water Quality Division. He could not find evidenc~ ~at Mr. Barthold had submitted an application for a feedlot permit. Randy referred to MinneSota. Rul~s again with regard to agricultural odors being exempt from air pollution and stated that ~ ~annot be of much assistance to the City in this matter. He stated that the City could pm'Su~ the ~tter in court, but the City would have to prove Mr. Barthold negligent and that would be difficult to do. On October 18, 19}1, I sent a letter to Mr. Barthold requesting that based on his comments to City Council On Iu!Y 2:!, that he submit a plan for odor management to the City. I also pointed out to Mr. Barthold'.that after researching State Statute 561.19 (Nuisance Liability of Agricultural Operations) i~at tl~e odors are only exempt if the operation has been in existence longer than 6 years. (Mr~ ~h~Id claimed that the operation had been in existence 25 years at the July 23, 1992 City Coune$! !rae~fing.) However, State Statute indicates that if the size of the operation is expanded, ttlen tlie~ established date of the operation becomes the date of the enlargement. Based on the pattcm~of e amplaints, I informed Mr. Barthold that it seems reasonable to assume that the operation ~$ ~nla rged in 1991 and therefore has not been in existence for more than 6 years and is not exemptflx!m~~ n,uisanee rules. I again urged Mr. Barthold to make application to MI'CA for his feedlot perm~tiand [seek their assistance in developing an odor management plan to be submitted to the City byN0vember 1, 1991. On February 6, 19~2, I sent a letter to Jake Barthold indicating that other than one telephone call from him, thee h~s been no further communication from him since my letter of OctOber 18. ! strongly ur~ him to submit his odor management plan by February 17. ! also suggested that if he cannot come ~ with an effective odor management plan, the City will seriously consider limiting the size of~ his hog operation to that of years previous to 1991. On February ]~4, 1~92, Jake Barthold called me to say that PCA has not placed a high priority on reviewing, his iappfieafion for a feedlot permit and consequently have not been to his property to inspect l~is 0ge-nifion and offer input to his draft odor man,a_gement plan. Based on the City's concern wit~ithe t0atter, PCA agreed to review Mr. Barthold s application and odor management plan within 2 .Wee~. Because of PCA's timeline, I gave Mr. Barthold until March 3 to submit an odor management plan for Council's review on March 10, 1992.