Agenda - Council - 07/12/1982 - Special

Home

Paqe 4 July 2, 1982 Ramsev ~Site P1 The county has proposed Site P as a sanitary landfill. It is south of the Anoka municipal landfill and west of County Rd..57. Access to the site is excellent. There is residential development primarily on one-acre lots to the northwest and southeast of the site. Commercial and industrial uses occur to the south and west, There is a Type III wetland just west of the site. The site has highly permeable soils; however, the.double liner and leachate collection system that the county has proposed should adequately protect surficial groundwater. Bedrock aquifers are protected by an overlying till layer and a confining bedrock layer. The staff recommends approval of Site P for the disposal of mixed municipal solid waste. Oak Grove Township /Site D~ Site D is proposed as a sanitary landfill. The site is about 200 feet west of Martin St. and 500 feet north of Cedar Creek. The existing Oak Grove landfill is in the western buffer area and there are about gO residences within one mile of the site. Access is good. There are tamarack and hardwood swamps just south of the site. Underlyinq soils are highly permeable and do not protect surficial groundwater. Both the wetland and Cedar Creek could be impacted by leachate or surface water contamination from the landfill. The staff recommends approval of Site D for the disposal of mixed municipal solid waste. East Bethel ISite E) This proposed sanitary landfill site is south of County Rd. 75. The existing East Bethel landfill adjoins the site, as do Booster Park and East Bethel's proposed "downtown" district. Most existinq residential'development occurs to the north and east of the site. Access to Site E is fair. Soils on the site are highly permeable and do not protect the surficial groundwater. A Type III wetland exists in the buffer area. There is'a serious doubt that on-site soils are adequate both to maintain the required distance between groundwater and fill materials and to ensure an adequate grade for proper operation of a liner and leachate collection system. The staff recommends that Site E not be approved for disposal of mixed muni- cipal solid waste, that the Council reduce Anoka County's required complement of mixed municipal solid waste landfill sites from four to three, and that the Council request Anoka County to submit another candidate site for demolition waste disposal within H~ days to the Council for review.