Agenda - Council - 02/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

QitY of Ramsey 151~53 NOWTHEN BOULEVARD N.W., RAMSEY, MINNESOTA 55303 · (612) 427-1410 Date: To: From: Re: February 18, 1992 Ciiy COuncil City Administrator Schroeder Zoin lng, Administrator Frolik Nuisanee Abatement - Hog Farm- PIN 14-32-25-43-0001 The purpose of this memo is bring City Council up to date on Staff efforts to avoid another situation in 1992 like that of 1991 with respect to the Jake and Peter Barthold hog fame. As you ma), recallS, segeral citizens were present at the July 23, 1991 City Council meeting to submit complaints Yega)'ding the odor generated at the hog farm. Basically, the outcome of that meeting was that Mr. Barthold was not in violation of any City Codes and that State Statute exempts agricultu¢~l uses as odor nuisances. Mr. Barthold stated his hog farm has been in existence for 25 yet{rs, but he would look into ways of minimizing odors from his operation. On August 13, 199! I sent a letter to MPCA requesting any assistance or information the.,,, could provide to help us resolve this odor problem. In a telephone conversation, Mark Stewart of PCA indicated that when! thatl agency reviewed Mr. Barthold's application for a feedlot permit (which had not ),et been submitted), they would also try to suggest methods of operation to Mr. Barthold that would reduce odors. On August 29, 1991;, I spoke to Randy Ellingboe, MPCA Water Quality Division. He could not find evidence that Mr. Barthold had submitted an application for a feedlot permit. Randy referred to Minnesota Rules again with regard to agricultural odors being exempt from air pollution and stated that MPCA cannot be of much assistance to the City in this matter. He stated that the City could pursue the matter in court, but the City would have to prove Mr. Barthold negligent and that would be difficult to do. On October 18, 1991; I sent a letter to Mr. Barthold requesting that based on his comments to City Council on July 23, 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 Agricuhural Operations) that the odors are only exempt if the operation has been in existence longer than 6 years, (Mr. Barthold claimed that the operation had been in existence 25 years at the July 23, 1992 bity Council meeting.) However, State Statute indicates that if the size of the operation is expanded, then the established date of the operation becomes the date of the enlargement. Based on the pattern of comp. lainis, I informed Mr. Barthold that it seems reasonable to assume that the operation was enlarged in ~991 and therefore has not been in existence for more than 6 years and is not exempt from nuisance i'ules, I again urged Mr. Barthold to make application to MPCA for his feedlot permit and seelt, their assistance in developing an odor management plan to be submined to the City by November,I, 1991. 1'7