pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � opernte�f that no noise resulti»gfi�a� snid opera�ion rv/lich would conslitufe n nuisance is perceptible beyond the premises. This does �iot npply to incider:ta! trrrffrc, parking n�trt off-street locrding operatio►:s. As indicated in the EAW at pages 29-31, noise attributable to the propased asphalt piant would extend beyond the premises. Mauy of us li��ing in nearby neighborhoods believe the F,AW seriously understates the noise levels associated with the proposed plant, and in pariicular the crushin� operation. Both the operation of the proposed plant itself, and in particular the crushing operation, are likely to praduce greater noise levels than used in the EA W analysis. Furtlier, �ve must not cotlfiise the MPCA noise standards and findings in the EAW with the Roseville Code. MpCA noise standards apply to the exterior of particular land uses, e.g. the yard of a residence. The language in Roseville Performance Standard 1 relates to the noise Ievel essentially at the property line of the noise generator, that is "beyond the preinises." I'here is no doubt that nuisance level i�oise �vould extend beyond the premises of the proposed asphalt plant. Yerforn�nnce Sta�rdard 2. S»:oke And Particulate Matter: Tlie enrission of snroke or• parliculnte mntter is prohrbrted where such eniission is perceptible heyond the p�•e�nises to the �legree as to constitute a nuisance. There should be no doubt that the proposed plant could not meet the standard found above. Data in the EAW, at pages 19-22, sho«� the proposed plant would produce readil_y detectible particulate emissions beyond the premises. Further, as acknowledged in the public meeting at Roseville in August, MPCA staff indicated that emission control technology at the proposed plani have not yet been used in similar facilities, making the emissions information suspect and possibly understating dle imUact. Further, tlle proposed site will have huge stockpiles of material, see Figure 4 of the EA��I�. These eight separate piles include aggregate, uncrushed asphalt and concrete rubble, crushed asphalt and concrete, aggregate, sand, shingles, asphalt millings, and sand. The proposed site would contain more than 112,000 square feet of ground area containing piles of exposed rnaterial. Iv�ore importantly, these are three dimensional piles, each of ��hich is 30 or more feet in height. Thei•efore; the surface area of exposed rubble and crushed material containing fine particulate is substantially greater tlian the 11?,4U0 sq. ft. These piles would be exposed to wind 12 months a year, regardless of whether the plant would be operating or not. As shown on Figt►re 4 of the EAW these piles are in close proaimity to the proposed site boundaries, indeed both the concrete rubble and asphalt rubble piles are shown di�•ectly adjacent to the property lines. There can be no doubt that the proposed asphalt plant «�auld result in particulate matter bein� perceptiUle beyond the premises to the degree as to constitute a nuisance.