pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�.. � Peiforninnce Stnndnrd 3. Toxic Or 11'o_rious A�atler: 1Vo use sl:all, for any perio�f of `�' time, dischnr�e �rcrass the boun�laries of the lot wlrereiii it is loc�rte�l, toxic or noxious inr�tter of sudt coircentr�nliort as to be detrintental to or endanger the public lten/tlr, safety, con�fort or welfare or ct�use i►:ju�y or dnma;e to prope�•ty ar br{siness. Noxious matter is de�ne� in the Code at 1002.02, "Noxrous Matter: material which is capable of causing injury or malaise to living organisms or is cable of causing detrimental effect upon the liealth or the psychological, social, or economic well being of human beings." There can be no doubt that the proposed plant cannot meet this performance standard. There is ample testimony in the record about ihe anxiety of preschool operators near the proposed site. There is evidence in the record about concerns articulated by nearby property ow�ners/operators abaut the impact of the proposed plant on their land uses and values. Tllere is tl�e stated demonstrable effects upon the food processing operations of the Old Dutch Company. There is evidence subnlitted in comment letters on the EAW about tlle effect of an asphalt plant on the value of nearby property. Performa�rce Standard 4. Odors: The emission of odorous nratter in such qunntities as to Ge readily detectnble beyonc! tlre bou»daries nf the imn�ediate site is prohibited Tl�ere ca�l be no doubt that the proposed plant cannot meet this performance standard. There is ample evidence in the EAW (pages 28-29) and presented at the Public Meeting � in August that odors wili be readily detectible beyond the boundaries of the site. The infoimation in the EAW {�vllich many residents believe substantially understates the likely odor iransmissions} indicates that odors caused by the operation of the proposed asplia(t plant would move beyond the boundaries of the site. Old Dutch Company, one of the major employers in the city, has indicated that odors attributable to the propased asplialt plant would travel to its operations at such a level as to substantially iulpair their operations, perhaps causing the company to cease operations in Roseville. This alone should be sufficient to disallow the proposed pIant fi�om operation. Zoning Ordinance Conclusion it is clear that the Cit}� of Roseville Zoning Ordinance prohihits the operation of t11e proposed plant analyzed in the EA1��. At the very least it cannot meet at least four of the Performance Standards for industrial use zones. As indicated at the beginning of my letter, these performance standards describe the "minimum standards" which are to be applied to proposed uses.