Laserfiche WebLink
rI <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />hearing. The discussion below addresses the latter two categories <br />of comments and information. <br /> <br /> A. Comments Relating to Air and Noise Pollution, <br /> Litter, and Aesthetics. <br /> <br /> There were several comments with respect to the sites <br /> <br />that related to possible air and noise pollution, litter, and <br />adverse effects on aesthetics resulting from the construction and <br />operation of a solid waste disposal facility at the sites. <br /> <br /> All of these concerns are directly related to the existence <br />of an occupied dwelling or other building, a pa~k, or experimental <br />ecological reserve presently located in the vicinity of a given <br />proposed site. The MPCA staff believes that a site should not be <br />found to be intrinsically unsuitable due to the existence of an <br />occupied dwelling or other building, park or experimental <br />ecological reserve in the vicinity of a site because adverse <br />effects can be prevented or mitigated by the County by acquiring <br />the dwelling or by properly designing (e.g., providing adequate <br />screening) and operating the site. <br /> <br /> The MPCA staff recognizes that these concerns are relevant to <br />the final permitting of a solid waste disposal facility with <br />respect to the design and operating conditions which will be <br />required by the MPCA. However, due to the nature of this <br />proceeding, the MPCA staff does not have sufficient information on <br />the design and operation of any of the proposed sites or on the <br />county's plans for acquiring dwellings or screening the site to <br />assess whether there will be, in fact, air and noise pollution, <br /> <br /> <br />