Agenda - Council - 08/23/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I Hearing Examtner could then be'tn a position to make the comparison of a particular area to the other 15 under consideration, Nearing Examiners were limited to highlighting issues that should be considered by the Board in its decision-making but could not recommend whether an area should be wholly excluded or included. In light of the fact that the selection factors set no threshold limits and that this Nearing Examiner was unaware of the relative m characteristics of the other areas under consideration, the Examiner's state- ment that the area "fails to meet five of the eight factors:'which [the Board] has indicated would be used in the comparison" is unwarrented and misleading. The staff further comments on specific portions of the Nearing Examiner's report: m 1st paragraph, statement of Issue - the area was-not "proposed by ~'he Board St~ff~ but, as noted in Exhibits O, FF, SG, NH, the areas.were proposed by the by a resolution passed December 17, 1982. ~gl. The Examiner erroneously states that objections received from the Burlington Northern Land Development Corp. are similar to the objection raised by Altron, minc,... BN Land Dev. Corp. was the primary landowner in the Coon Rapids area and they indicated plans for development of non-industrial uses in-:he area. It was these plans for non-industrial use that werecited by the Board as m one of the reasons to remove the area. The comments of Altron. Inc. did not discuss future land use plans for any of the surrounding-area. ~23. The Hearing Examiee~ states that city officials 'made it v~ryClear m both in their testimony formal resolutions that this zoni6g classification and in Was never intended to include.hazardous waste processing facilities", Neither resolution presented b~ the C~tymenttons this issue. Although the'Nearing m Examiner failed to cite any reference for this statement in the transcript, a review of. the testimony made by city representatives failed .to reveal that such.~ a statement was ever made. m ~6~ The exhibit noted by the Examiner-(Exhibit WW) does not include any reference to "g3% of the site" and in fact the copy of the plan {which is Exhibit WW) mdoes not include a map showing the planned sewer area. Therefore, reference by the hearing examiner to 23% and 77% of the site (findings ~6 and #~7) cannot be sub- stantiated by materials in the hearing record. m ~7, This finding is not substantiated by the referenced exhibits. " ~31, There was nothing in the record to substantiate the: statement that "It is -extremely doubtful that a hazardous treatment facility would take.this course of action, particularly at this:site.' Further, there is no infoYmation in the .i record concerning the costs of discharging to the river or concerning right-of-way m and easement acquisition. The.quoted statement :"something like a lagoon system, settling ponds' was not a statement:made by WMB staff, but rather part of a state.m?nt made by a Ramsey citizen to which t~B staff responded "That ~s a m possibility if they.could meet those conditions.' (T, p. 90, aft.) S~nce'.tt is unknown 1. if a facility ('if ever developed) would require on-site.treatment, 2. what type of .effluent would:require treatment, and 3, what type of treatment- m could be used,.tt is not possible to make reliable speculation as to.the any specific design of an effluent treatment system. Therefore, the Hearing ~xamtner's statement, here is based on a very questtonable interpretation'pr What was actually msaid at the heart.rig, and t~ very misleading.