Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />IS <br /> <br /> <br />an <br /> <br />when it is presented with conflicting non-experts' opinions, including those of area residents, so <br />long as the reasons are concrete and based on observations, not merely on fear or speculation. <br />Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis, 653 N.W.2d 638, 644-45 (Minn. App. <br />2002), rev'd on other grounds, 667 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2003); BBY Investors v. City oj <br />Maplewood, 467 N.W.2d 631, 635 (Minn. App. 1991) (concluding "testimony" from <br />neighborhood residents opposing the issuance of conditional use permit "effectively rebutted" <br />applicant's expeIi evidence), review denied (Minn. May 23,1991). <br />Here, area residents stated that they had conducted research on the pollutants likely to be <br />emitted and provided exhibits supporting their statements. One resident presented data from the <br />EP A that the preferred level for dioxins in drinking water is zero parts per million. Another <br />resident stated that under his calculations the crematorium would be responsible for 1/42 of the <br />statewide emission of mercury each year. Another resident stated that the crematorium would <br />emit 22 pounds of hydrogen chloride per year and 1/3 of a pound of mercury per year, both of <br />which the Congress of Industrial Hygienists consider to be "immediately dangerous to health <br />and life." A fourth resident contradicted the suggestion that the emission of radioactive patiicles <br />is prevented because the "controller" of the deceased's body is questioned to ensure that <br /> <br />http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/coa/current/opa040672-1123.htm <br /> <br />11/23/2004 <br />