Agenda - Council - 03/10/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I i I ! I I I I CASE # / NUISANCE i BackgrOu : ABATEMENT HOG FARM (PIN 14-32-25-43-00013 By: Zoning Administrator Syh, ia Frolik As you maFi~reeail, several citizens were present at the July 23, 1991 City Council meeting To submit conip!aint~ regarding the odor generated at the hog farm. Basically, the outcome of that meeting was [,thatl 'Mr. Barthold was not in violation of any City Codes and that State Statute exempts,, agricultural uses as odor nuisances. Mr. Barthold stated his hog farm has been in existence f0r¢5 y~ars, but he would look into ways of minimizing odors from his operation. On August 1~;, 1~9c~1 1 sent a letter to MPCA requesting any assistance or information they could provide to:~{ p U~ resolve this odor problem. In a telephone conversation, Mark Stewart ~f PCA indicated th'It wiiCn that agency reviewed Mr. Barthold's application for a feedlot permit (which had not yet b !enlslubmitted), they would also nD' to suggest methods of operation to Mr. Banhold that wouldm lue¢~odors. On Augusl g~, 1'9~91, I spoke to Randy Ellingboe, MPCA Water Quality Division. He could not find eviden~*[:thatlMr. Barthold had submitted an application for a feedlot permit. Randy referred ~o MinnesOt~a~RUj,~s again with regard to agricultural odors being exempt from air pollution and stated thlat~M,PCAicannot be of much assistance to the City in this matter. He stated that the City could purs°g'iherbatter in court, but the City would have to prove Mr. Barthold negligent and that would be dii' ~f'!cu!t!to do. On October 1~, 1;991, I sent a letter to Mr. Barthold requesting that based on his comments to City Council on J~y 2B, that he submit a plan for odor management to the City. I also pointed out t~ Mr. Barthoid!that after researching State Statute 561.19 (Nuisance Liability of A~icultural OperatiOns)} t~at :the odors are only exempt if the operation has been in existence longer than 6 years. (Mr, ~c~ld claimed that the operation had been in existence 25 years at the July 23, 1992 ~ity Counc~il!m¢~ting.) However, State Statute indicates that if the size of the operation is expanded, thgla th~ established date of the operation becomes the date of the enlargement. Based on the patt~of~°rnplaints, I informed Mr. Barthold that it seems reasonable to assume that the operation wasienla~ged in 1991 and therefore has not been in existence for more than 6 years and is not exempt b~rn ~uisanee rules. I again urged Mr. Barthold to make application to MPCA for his feedlot permig;'~andiseek their assistance in developing an odor management plan to be submitted to the City by NOver~ber 1, 1991. On February,{, 19~92, I sent a letter to Jake Barthold indicating that other than one telephone call from him, there hfas been no further communication from him since my letter of October 18. I strongly urgex~ hin~ to submit his odor management plan by February 17. I also suggested that if he can~°t c°~e :'.t~p with an effective odor management plan, the City will seriously consider limiting the Si~e 6f his hog operation to that of years previous to 1991. On Febru?, i4, :1 )92;'Jake Barthold called me to say that PCA has not placed a high priority on reviewing h~s ~pp'. ication for a feedlot permit and consequently have not been to his property to inspect his' o~era, t on and offer input to his d_raft odor management plan. Based on the City's concern wi~'l ~er tatter, PCA ag'reed to review Mr. Barthold's application and odor management plan within E, Weelr. S. Because of PCA's timeline, I gave Mr. Banthold until March 3 to submit an odor manag~erii Clan for Council's review on March 10, 1992.