12/06/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The EIS on page 116 refers to the possibility of a temporary delay of two years for airport improvements which would occur as a result of the landfill operations. This again could only be assured through a time limit imposed on the landfill expansion rather than simply approving WM/~I's requested volume for the expansion. The EIS on page 116 also refers to the development restrictions imposed due to Site P. Those restrictions apply only within the area of the candidate sites and buffer areas (MS 473.806 subd. l) not to land outside of these areas. This is further supported in 473.831 subd. I regarding debt obligations and 473.840, purchase of certain property. Should this be interpreted in any way to be a development restriction on the airport, Anoka County may find itself in a situation where it would have to compensate the current landowners for land required for airport use through acquisition of temporary development rights. At a recent public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit, WM~I stated that they have since revised the height of the proposed landfill to 1020' MSL. This elevation would be below the horizontal surface of the existing airport and aside from the period of time when vehicles are operating on it should not infringe on protected airspace. This proposed elevation should be reflected in the final EIS. The Pederal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the responsible agency for making a determination regarding whether the proposed landfill expansion would create a hazard or greater hazard to air navigation. On page 120, the excerpt from the draft airport master plan indicating that "A check with area pilots and Mn/DOT relative to bird strikes, close calls or other related problems, indicates that the existing landfill has not been a bird attractor or created a hazard area" is a statement that FA~ specifically raised an issue with. The EIS on page 121 refers to "extending the hazard potential over the landfills new operating life-something less than thr~e years". This can only be true again based on a time limit to complete the landfill expansion as well as a permitted volume. The point that the EIS fails to consider is that the potential hazards associated with the continuation of the landfill will increase, not soley because of the .landfill itself, but also due to the increased number of operations that have occurred and are expected to occur at the airport.