03/13/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I sanction or approve any subdivisions, permjts, licenses or other authorizations which would allow development to occur not approved by Metro Council. ]he subject area for which the permit is bein9 requested is within the boundaries of the County landfill ~nventory, Site P, and cannot be developed. ~his opinion was given by the County on November 30, 1984 in a letter addressed to the City Engineer. I submit to you the idea that this is not a temporary permit as evidenced by conflicting oomments contained in Council minutes of November 13, 1984 and Planning and Zoning minutes of December 4, 1984: Council, November 13, 1984 - "Mr. Berg stated that Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. has submitted a request for a temporary oonditional use permit to mine property just to the south of the landfill for oover purposes. Mr. Berg stated that he has submitted the application to City Engineer Raatikka for his review. ~he mining process could take two years to complete. Mr. Berg stated that a temporary conditional use permit does not require a public hearing and Council could approve the request contingent upon approval of City Engineer and compliance with City ordinances.' "City Attorney Goodrich stated that it should be discussed whether or not a regular or temporary oonditional permit should apply in this case; a temporary permit is intended for uses generally not suitable within a zoning district on a temporary basis. City Attorney Goodrich stated that it may be that two years is not considered temporary and the end result of the mining may not be temporary.' "Council consensus is that Waste Management should apply for a regular Conditional Use Permit." Planning and Zoning, December 4, 1984 - "Mr. Goodrich inquired as to con~encement and termination of the mining activity. Mr. Otter replied that mining could possibly co~nence in the Spring of 1985 and terminate in 1997. Mr. Otter explained that County ordinance requires 5 years closure and 5 years post closure and it is possible that this ordinance will be amended to extend closure/post closure an additional 10 years. Under these circ~m~stances, Mr. Otter explained that Waste Management could need fill material off of the subject property until the year 2005.' I question the degree of Waste Management of Minnesota's honesty judging from dealings and negotiations that have taken place over landfill situations. Last spring it appeared that the City was about to agree to sale conditions when a suddent turn of direction was made by Waste Management which would have allowed a northerly expansion of landfill versus a southerly expansion, which had been previously discussed in sale contract proposals. Waste Management's purchase proposal also contained a contingency requirement of a mining permit tabled by Council until December 11, 1984. Even after denial of permits, which would have satisfied the expansion contingency, and tabling of mining contingency, Waste Management did drop all contingencies and did complete purchase of landfill property on December 12, 1984. Issuing this permit would be in full acoord with Waste Management's stepping stone to the ultimate selection of Site P as a landfill; supporting this comment is Mr. Moersfelder's corm~ents recorded in the November 30, 1984 publication of the Anoka County Union. I agree with Mr. Cox's statements we have heard regarding government should be returned to the people. I ask that Council take this same position and deny the request for a temporary mining permit and ask if the people in attendance at this meeting are in agreement with the request for denial. What are Mr. Terry Miller's qualifications to operate a mine? Mr. Moersfelder - ~he use of borrow material in landfill operation is a standard approach to running a landfill. ~his has been going on ever since PCA and County specified types of materials to be used for cover and it really February 12, 1985 Page 4 of 9