CC_Minutes_2010_0927 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

boundaries of the lot wherein it is located, toxic or noxious matter of such concentration as to be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare or cause injury or damage to property or business. 4. Odors: The emission of odorous matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable beyond the boundaries of the immediate site is prohibited. 5. Vibrations: Any use creating periodic earthshaking vibrations, such as are created by heavy drop forges or heavy hydraulic surges, shall be prohibited if such vibrations are perceptible beyond the boundaries of the immediate site. 6. Glare or Heat: Any operation producing intense glare or heat shall be performed within a completely enclosed building. 1 believe there is a substantial question as to whether or not this proposed use is permitted under our present zoning code. However, because the city chose to believe permits could not be denied and that environmental review was not necessary in this case, a Citizens' EAW request was submitted, an EAW was ruled mandatory, an EAW prepared, and an EAW was circulated for public comment. According to EQB Rules, "The purpose of the EAW process is to disclose information about potential environmental impacts of the project." This has now been done and the process of deciding the necessity of an EIS is the next formal step in the environmental review process. As the originator of the Citizen's Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (on behalf of Friends of Twin Lakes), 1 would respectfully request that now is perhaps an appropriate time for the City Council to consider whether there is any basis for giving land use approval given what we now know of the environmental impacts of this proposed project. MN Rules Section 4410.4600, subpart 2 (Standard Exemptions) allows a governmental unit to deny a permit during pendency of environmental review. A permit may not be granted or approved until the environmental review is complete, but one can be denied based on findings brought forward as part of the environmental review process. In this case, at the close of the comment period for the EAW, 167 comments from the public, businesses, municipalities, and pubic golf courses were received. The Air Quality Permit, while not receiving the same volume of comments, received many. These are not "not in my backyard comments." These comments concern issues of health, property values, manufacturing impacts, and job loss (some 300 jobs could be lost at Old Dutch). They are comments concerning equipment to be used and the monitoring process. They are comments from municipal officials, attorneys, residents, nurses, doctors, and engineers. They raise serious and valid concerns which have no easy answers, solutions, or mitigations. More than one letter to the MPCA queries, if such a permit is granted and such a plant built, what happens if it becomes a major polluter of our water, air, or soil? Unfortunately, as a resident points out, the plant will be fined, but all those suffering from the pollution will have to stay. Once a plant is built, the best efforts at mitigation may be insufficient. Furthermore, once a conditional use permit is granted, it runs with the land. This means that even if the present plant went out of business, the use would continue to be permitted. The granting of a conditional use permit has a very powerful community impact and should only be granted with great care.