Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE MN DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE <br />(letter from Paul Burns, May 2, 1986) <br /> <br />1. <br />the <br />may <br /> <br />Section 4.7 has been revised to address the <br />impact that conversion of crop land in this <br />have on agricultural support services. <br /> <br />question of <br />project area <br /> <br />The overall impact of other conversions of agricultural land <br />in the area, as urban development expands out from the Twin <br />Cities, is difficult to assess. Generally, agricultural <br />support services have moved their operations out, following <br />their markets to the more predominately rural areas. The <br />current crisis in agriculture, in which many farmers are <br />going out of business, has also had an impact on <br />agricultural support services. <br /> <br />Although Ramsey has been experiencing rapid growth in the <br />last decade, city officials have received very few <br />complaints from residents concerning conflicts with <br />agricultural operations. No increase in nuisance <br />complaints, etc. are anticipated due to this development. <br /> <br />2. The City of Ramsey's policy for interpreting Rural <br />Service Area density is discussed in the Draft EIS in <br />section 4.5 and Appendix A. The City intends to apply this <br />policy to all proposed developments in the Rural Service <br />Area. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />I <br /> <br />3. As stated in the Metropolitan Council's comments on the <br />Draft EIS (May 13,1986), the MWCC will not provide public <br />sewer and water facilities to this area. If there were <br />septic system failure and/or well contamination in this <br />area, the cost of remedial action would be borne by the <br />individual land owner. provisions in the event of private <br />sewer system failure are covered under sections 159.91.50 <br />and 159.91.8 in the Ramsey Sewage Disposal ordinance. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />-52- <br /> <br />I <br />t <br />