Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />The EISen page 116 refers to. thepossihilityefatemperary delay of <br />two. years for airport improvements\o.'hich would occurasa result of the <br />landfill operatiens. This again could only be assured through a t.ime <br />limit imposed onthelandfillexpansien rather than simply approving <br />WMMI1sreguested velume for the expansion. <br /> <br />The EISon page 116 also refers te.the develepment restrictiens <br />imposed clue to SiteP.These restrictions app1yenlywithinthe area <br />of the candidate sites and buffer a~eas (MS 473. a 06 subd. 1) not to <br />landou't.sideof these areas... This is Jurther supported in ~73.a31 <br />subd. 1 regarding debt obligationsand~73.a40, purchase of certain <br />property. ShOUld this be.interpreted in any way to pe a development <br />restrictio.n on the airport ,Anoka County may find itself in a <br />situation where it would have to. cernpensate.the current landelo7ners fer <br />land required. fer airpert use through acquisition e.ftemperary <br />development ric;hts. <br /> <br />Ata .recent public hearing for a.conditienalUsePernlit,WMMlstated <br />that they have since revised.the height of the proposed landfill to <br />1020' MSL. This elevatien wculd be belew the herizental surface ef <br />the existing airpert and aside fremthe peried of time when vehicles <br />are Qperatingon it should net infringe en pretected airspace. This <br />prepesed elevatien sheuld be reflected in the final EIS. TheFederal <br />Aviation Administratien (FAA) is the respensible agency for making a <br />determination regarding whether the proposed landfill expansion would <br />create a hazard or greater hazard to air navigation. <br /> <br />Oh page 120, the excerpt from the draft airpe=t master plan <br />indicating that "A check with area pilets and Mn/DOT relative to. bird <br />strikes, clese calls or ether related preblems, indicates t.hat-the <br />existing landfill has net been a bird att=acter er created a hazard <br />area" is a statement that FAA specifically raised an issue with. <br /> <br />The EIS en page 121 refers to. "extending the hazardpetential ever the <br />landfills new operating life-something less than three years". This <br />can only be true again based on a time litr.it to. complete the landfill <br />expansion as well as a permitted volume. <br /> <br />The peint that the EIS fails to consider is that the pctential hazards <br />asseciated\>dth the centinuation of the landfill will increase-, not <br />seley because. of the landfill itself, but also. due to. the increased <br />number of eperatiens that have eccur=ed and are expected to. occur at <br />the airpert. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />6~ <br />