11/13/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. . . Case #3: Information On ~]blic AWqreness Of MPCA Re9ulations Regardin9 The Qi~posal Of Ha7.ardous Wastes: lJhe Legislative Subconunittee has not yet met regarding MPO\ regulations and effective wOJjs to inform local businesses. Case #4: AJ?pp-arance &y I$lb Hutchison. AllQka Coun~. 'lb Oiscnss Aqy Pbssibilities ~or DevelQnment Of Landfill Buffer Area~: Mr. Hutchison was present and gave a history and current status report regarding the 1980 Solid Waste Act regarding addi tional landf ill si te selection. lJhe Solid Waste Act states that all metro counties shall identify 4 possible locations for landfill developnent; that requirement was reduced to 3. MPCA and Metro Council would then review and approve the 3 si tes subni tted. lJhe three sites subnitted include Site P in Ramsey, Site D in Oak Grove Township and Si te Q in the northern corner of Bunker Park. lJhe Solid Waste Act requires the County to do an Envirorunental Impact Statanent on the three sites through Metro Council funds obtained from a bond sale; those bonds were not sold until mid-October of this year; the County chose not to proceed wi th the EtS funds are available and those funds will be available about mid-December. lJhe EIS will include Enviornmental Assessment Worksheets and PUblic hearings regarding the scoping of the EAW doclll1ent will be conducted and it will be an opportunity for the public to make reoammendations for additions and deletions to the EAW scoping doclll1ent. EAW scoping hearings will probably not take place until late February, 1986; EIS process probably won' t get under way until April, 1986 and will tabke about one year; site selection body (County Board, conununity representatives, certain County commissioners and a representative from -a disinterested community) have 90 days from EIS completion to make a site selection; County then has 90 days to purchase the pro~rty selected by ei ther an agreeable sale or condemnation. lJhe landfill site must be purchased and the buffer area must be in fee title or developnent rights. Conceivably, developnent can occur now on the buffer areas under developnent moratorium if the developnent being proposed does not affect the potential selection of that particular site; the proposed developnent would be hard to justify because the more developnent allowed to take place prior to si te selection hinders the si te selection process. After si te selection, appropriate screening for the si te will be addressed. Serious consideration will probably be given to using heavy industrial developnent as a screen to landfill rathern than the normal vegetation and berming. Heaving industrial developnent used as screening would reduce buffer costs; would be more effective than landscaping; would increase the tax base; includes additional anployment potential. Mr. Hutchison recommended that buffer developnent be considered after si te selection has been made. Commissioner Fults inquired if the 1980 Act contains any provisions to protect pro~rty owners affected by the moratorium. Mr. Hutchison stated that this concern was considered but Legislation chose not to address it in the 1980 Act. 1984 legislation SOJjs that a landowner wanting to develop a ~rmitted use in the moratorium area can request a lifting of the moratorium. If the request is denied, the landowner can apply for com~nsation for not being able to develop in a manner consistent wi th local zoning; the process for doing so is s~cified by law and a short one. November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 5