Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Woodbury had valid complaints about their compost site; they also required Appleby <br />restaurant to install odor suppression equipment - as it was next to a residential <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Tom Johnson advised Woodbury has the most comprehensive process for odor control <br />that he is aware of; however, it may not withstand Court review. <br /> <br />Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Div (Marilyn 296.6300): Minnesota odor rules <br />were repealed November 19, 1996 (generally due to unenforcability - see League ofMN Cities <br />letter). Therefore, they no longer enforce odor control standards. <br />If the city wishes to pursue a standard procedure, without undue expense to any existing or future <br />business in the City, it may be most reasonable to incorporate in business PUDs and building <br />permits when issued, verbage similar to Woodbury's: <br />. "if odor becomes a problem from any restaurants or food establishments, the City can (or may) <br />require suppression equipment to be installed"; or, <br />a combination of St Paul & Woodbury: by also including verbage "if establishment maintains or <br />permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, <br />comfort or repose of a considerable number of members of the public, the City can require <br />suppression equipment to be installed". <br />