Laserfiche WebLink
_. <br />Members of the Roseviile City Council <br />September 21, ZO10 <br />Page 2 <br />�, <br />��i�i <br />Moss & Barnett <br />4. The effects of nuisance dust and odor are essential for evaluating the proposed plant, <br />but the MPCA does not regulate nuisance dust, and the existing standards for hydrogen <br />sulfide (odor) are inadequate. Many uses in the area are sensitive to dust and odor and <br />the EAW does not resoive the issue. <br />5. The EAW relies on tes[ results from other settings, but there is too much uncertainty <br />about the data to be able to extrapolate it to the Roseville proposal. <br />Gladstone greatly appreciates the City having requested that the MPCA order an E1S. With or <br />without an EIS, an MPCA decision favorable to the project will not resolve the land use issues. <br />The City has not finished consideration of the conditional use application. There is more <br />relevant fnformatlon available now than when the Planning Comm(ssion reviewed the project in <br />2009. Therefore, if the project returns for City consideration, the City should conduct additional <br />public hearings. Gladstone wlll not burden you at thls time with its legal and factual analysis <br />regarding the zoning issues, except to say that there are open issues and that Gladstone <br />intends to participate in the City process to the fullest extent possibie. <br />Thank you for your concem about the effect the proposed project would have on its neighbors. <br />_ Respectfully submitted, <br />/�� �-� <br />Paul B. Zisla <br />Attomey At Law <br />P:(612) 877-5328 <br />ZislaP@moss-barnett. com <br />PBZ/cag <br />Enclosures <br />cc: Mr. Bill Malinen, City Manager <br />Mr. Chris Massey <br />1659854v1 <br />