Agenda - Council - 07/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE #: NU ~I~AI~CE ABATEMENT - HOG FARM (PIN 14-32-25-43-0001) By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: As you may r:.eca~, several citizens were present at the July 23, 1991 City Council meeting to submit comPl~nI~ regarding the odor generated at the hog farm. Basically, the outcome of that meeting wa~i~that}Mr. Barthold was not in violation of any City Codes and that State Statute exempts agri~ulttiral uses as odor nuisances. Mr. Barthold stated his hog farm has been in existence f0t :~5 y~ars, but he would look into ways of minimizing odors from his operation. On August 1~, 1991 I sent a letter to MPCA requesting any assistance or information they could provide to hel~ us Iresolve this odor problem. In a telephone conversation, Mark Stewart of PCA indicated that!:whe~n that agency reviewed Mr. Barthold's application for a feedlot permit (which had not yet be~n S{abmitted), they would also try to suggest methods of operation to Mx. Barthold that would reduce bdors. On August 2ir, 199,1, I spoke to Randy Ellingboe, MPCA Water Quality Division. He could not find evidence :hat Mr. Barthold had submitted an application for a feedlot permit. Randy referred to MinneSota tuleg again with regard to agricultural odors being exempt from air pollution and stated that ME 2A ~:annot be of much assistance to the City in this matter. He stated that the City could pursU~ tile n'~a~ tter in court, but the City would have to prove Mr. Barthold negligent and that would be diffi~iult ilo do. On October !8,, 199,1, I sent a letter to Mr. Barthold requesting that based on his comments to City Council on 3'uly 23{,, that he submit a plan for odor management to the City. I also pointed out to Mr. Barthold ghat [after researching State Statute 561.19 (Nuisance Liability of Agricultural Operations) ~ file odors are only exempt if the operation has been in existence longer than 6 years. (Mr.'B~o!d claimed that the operation had been in existence 25 years at the July 23, 1992 City CounCil meeting.) However, State Statute indicates that if the size of the operation is expanded, thb~ theiestablished date of the operation becomes the date of the enlargement. Based on the patten of cc~mplaints, I informed Mr. Barthold that it seems reasonable to assume that the operation w~:~nla~ged in 1991 and therefore has not been in existence for more than 6 years and is not exempt fi;om nt!iisance rules. I again urged Mr. Barthold to make application to MPCA for his feedlot permit ired !eek their assistance in developing an odor management plan to be submitted to the City by No tember 1, 1991. On February 6i 199~2, I sent a letter to Jake Barthold indicating that other than one telephone call from him, there hats been no further communication from him since my letter of October 18. I strongly urg~ himlto submit his odor management plan by February 17. I also suggested that if he cannot COr~ e u~ with an effective odor management plan, the City will seriously consider limiting the siz i of ,his hog operation to that of years previous to 1991. ~ r On February-14, 1992, Jake Bart. hold called me to say that PCA has not placed a high priority on reviewing his ~ph~-' ation for a feedlot permit and consequently have not been to his property to inspect his ovg~'ition and offer input to his draft odor management plan. Based on the City's concern with'the m~ttter, PCA agreed to review Mr. Banhold's application and odor managemlnt plan w~thm 2 Weeks[. Because of.,P, CAs umelme, I gave Mr. Barthold until March 3 to submit an odor management Plan for Council s review on March 10, 199')