Agenda - Council - 05/31/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

,I ,'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I sfford all interested l~m ~n opportunity to ask questions, testify ~d present evidenc~ on the subject matter, 2. The Minnesota Pollutio~ Control A~ency fulfilled its statutory obliga- tions by preparing a suitability report on the proposed area. 3. The Minnesota Waste Management Board has complied with all substantive and procedural requirements of law. 4. The Board duly acquired and now has Jurisdiction over th~ within pro- 5. Any of th~ foregoing Findings which should more properly be deemed Conclusions are hsreby adopted as such. Base~ upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner makes the icl- IT IS HERf~Y RD~G~gD~n: That in deciding whether to include the pro- posed site in th~ final inventory of preferred areas for the location of chemical processing facilitiesl storage and transfer facilities and incinera- tion facilities~ the Board should consider the follc~ring items: . ~he lack of industrial development throughout most of the site; Tne compatibility of processing facilities with existing onsite businesses; d. The unavailability of publ.ic w~ter and sewer service; The difficulty of providing p~blic w~ter and sewer service in the area because .of large lot zon{ng; e. The lack'of a receiving stream within one mile of much of the proposed site; f. The difficulties of transportation access to the' proposed site; g, The increased potential of and severity of accidents due to the r~llroad tracks and the airport~ h. The proximity to major residential develol~_nts; i. ~he shallow water table and lack of protective soils; J. ~he potential impacts on the lake-wetland complex in the northern part of the site; k. The potential conflicts with state'ar~ local shoreland z~ng requirements; 1. The potential ccnfllcts with FAA height regulations (mostly with incineration use); m. The air quality problems of the area (for incineration use only); n. Potential adverse impacts on agriculture; and o. The location of hazardous waste generators.. IT IS FURTHER Rf~G4MflNDE~. ~ If the Board does not delete the proposed site fro~ the inventory, that it consider including the alternative site discussed in Finding 66. In acting on this recommendaticn~ the Board should consider the advantages detailed in that Fin.al. lng'.' -12-