Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />! <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Co~ssioners <br />Kennen, Zimmerman, Deemer, Johnson, Hendriksen and LaDue. Voting <br />No: None. <br /> <br />Case ~2: Request For A Conditional Use Permit~ Case Of Waste <br /> Management: <br /> <br />Chairman Peterson read aloud a letter dated July 3, 1984 from <br />Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. to Ramsey Planning Commission <br />and City Council. (See Attachment III). <br /> <br />Mr. Charles LeFevere - Law Firm of LeFevere, Lefler, Kennendy, <br />O'Brien & Drawz - Stated that he is present to speak to the <br />draft remedial action provision in the subject permit and <br />contract. Mr. LeFevere stated in some senses the remedial <br />action provision provides only protection afforded by State and <br />Federal law. It is possible that the protection afforded by <br />the laws and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency <br />and the State Pollution Control Agency would provide the City <br />with adequate protection. Obtaining those funds would depend <br />on the EPA having those funds available and their determination <br />as to the priority of the contamination. The Super Fund can be <br />limited in a number of ways as well: 1) Can only require of <br />an entity that it comply with orders to take remedial action to <br />the extent to which that entity has financial resources; 2) Funds <br />would have to be available in the State Super Fund Bill for monies <br />to be made available from the State. Currently there is not <br />$15,000,000 available in the entire Super Fund account. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere referred to a comment made at the June 25, 1984 <br />public hearing regarding the Commission ought not to grant the <br />conditional use permit because the City would not be gaining <br />anything and stated that in a sense that co~ment is incorrect <br />and correct. Planning and Zoning should not decide whether the <br />City get value in dollars; Planning Commission should determine <br />whether the proposed use is consistent with criteria set forth <br />in City ordinances. Protections that are afforded by the draft <br />conditional use permit may be relative to Planning Co~ission's <br />determination. <br /> <br />Mr. LeFevere stated that his law firm was retained by the City <br />of Ramsey in connection with the contract dispute between Anoka <br />and Ramsey. In as much as the proposal by Waste Management <br />potentially settled that lawsuit, his law firm has been drawn <br />further into the issue and assisting the City Attorney with <br />consideration of this conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Doug Hsr, m - 6821 152nd Avenue NW - Inquired if the money is to <br />protect from contamination from the existing landfill or the <br />the expansion area? <br /> <br /> Mr. LeFevere stated that the money would cover contmmination <br /> from the existing and expanded area. Protection afforded the <br /> the conditional use permit includes the existing site; currently, <br />I~ that protection does not exist. Waste Management agrees to take <br /> remedial action, up to a limit of $15,000,000, provided the <br /> conditional use permit is granted. If no conditional use permit <br />i were granted and leachate from the existing site was found in <br /> P & Z/July 3, 1984 <br /> Page 4 of 19 <br /> <br /> <br />