09/06/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hearing Examiner could then be in a position to make the comparison of a particular area to the other 15 under consideration, Hearing Examiners were m limited to highlighting issues that should be considered by. the Board in its decision-making but could not recommend whether an area should be wholly excluded or included. In light of the fact that the selection factors set m 'no threshold limits and that this Hearing Examiner was unaware of the relative characteristics of the other areas under consideration, the Examiner's state- ment that the area "fails to meet five of the eight factors"which [the Board] t has indicated would be used in the comparison" is unwarrented and misleading. The staff further comments on specific portions of the )4earing Examiner's report: 'm 1st paragraph, statement of Issue - the area w~s-not "proposed by ~he Board Stm'ff" but, as noted in Exhibits O, FF, SG, HH, the areas were proposed by the m by a resolution passed December 17, 1982. ~21. The Examiner erroneously states that objections received from the Burlington m Northern Land Development Corp. are similar to the objection raised by Altron, '"' Inc." BN Land Dev. Corp. was the primary landowner in the Coon Rapids area ' and.they indicated plans for development of non-industrial uses in ~he area. It was these plans for non-industrial use that werecited by the Board as m one .of the .reasons remove area. Altron, Inc. did to the The cOmments of not discuss future land use plans for any of the surrounding-area. m .. ~23. The Hearing Exami~e~ states that city officials-"made it v.e, ry clear bo~h in their testimony and in formal resolutions that this zoning classification Was never iniended to include hazardous waste processing facilities". 'ileither - mresolution presented by the City mentions this issue. Although the Hearing Examiner failed to cite any reference for this statement in the transcript, a review of. the testimony made by city representattveg failed to reveal that such. m a statement was ever made. ~j~6, The exhibit noted by the Examiner'. (Exhibit WW) does not include any mreference to "23% of the site" and in fact the copy of the plan (which is Exhibit WW does not include a map showing the planned sewer area. Therefore, reference'by the hearing examiner to 23% and 77% of the site (findings f26 and f27) cannot be sub- -m stantiated by materials in the hearing record. m #27. This finding- is not substantiated by the referenced exhibits. m ·" ~31. There was nothing, in the record to sul~stantiate the;statement that "It is ...extremely doubtful that a hazardous treatment facility would take this course m of action, particularly at this-site.". 'Further, there is no inforlnation in the .- record concerning the costs of discharging to the river or concerning right-of-way and easement acquisition. The .quoted statement ."something like a lagoon system, m settling ponds" was not a st~teme.nt:made by stsff, but rather part of a statement made by a Ramsey citizen to which staff responded "That is a possibility if they could meet those conditions." (T. p. 90, aft.) Since .it is unknown 1. if a' facility (if ever developed) would require on-site treatment, m 2. what type of.effluent would:require treatment, and 3. what type of treatment could be used, ..it is not possible to make any reliable speculation as to the 'specific dest.gn of 'an effluent treatment system.. Therefore, the Hearing E. xamtn~r's m statement here is b. ased on .a very questionable .interpretation' .of. wt)a. t '~ms actually said at the heart.rig and is very.misleading. ' .-