Laserfiche WebLink
Planni ~ Commission Minutes <br />June 9, 2009 <br />--------------------------- <br />Page 7 <br />heavy truck traffic due to the mining and refuse haulers on Proctor Road. He felt <br />improvements for the roads should be assessed to the mining companies and the landfill. <br />He stated that he felt Waste Management was a good company, but should be accountable <br />for maintenance of Proctor. <br />Tom Schulz, 1611 I-highway 169 -stated that he lives across from the landfill and owns 500 <br />acres. He also is an employee of Elk River Landfill. He stated he has lived there for 30 years <br />and has never had an issue with the landfill. <br />Maureen Griffiths, 20760 York Street -stated that she has been a resident of Elk River for <br />16 years and is employed by Elk River Landfill. She stated that the company provides <br />opportunities for growth. She stated that she has served on the board of the Energy City <br />Commission, and enjoys teaching children about recycling and respecting the environment <br />in the learning center. She stated that there are a large number of direct and indirect <br />employees, as well as temporary labor that would be impacted if the expansion is not <br />approved. She stated that Elk River Landfill is a good companyto grow with, and that they <br />are a good neighbor and good citizen. <br />There being no further public comment, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that he was uneasy with the conflict between the reports by <br />the City's consultant and Waste Management's consultant. He stated that he felt it would be <br />in Tiller's best interest to expedite the mineral extraction. He stated he had concerns with <br />reclaiming 99 acres for recreation. He stated that there were many more options for <br />redevelopment of mining property versus landfill. He stated he had great concerns with the <br />visual impact of landfill at the entrance to the city. Commissioner Anderson stated that he <br />possibly could support a carefullywritten conditional use permit. <br />Commissioner Westberg stated he concurred with Commissioner Anderson regarding the <br />visual impact. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan does address the image element. He <br />stated that he felt Waste Management presented a good case, regarding the City's Energy <br />City goals. He stated that he felt buffers would be needed for any development around the <br />landfill site. He stated that issues in the letter from Waste Management received this evening <br />need to be looked at funher. He noted that no one spoke in opposition of the request. <br />Chair Scott stated he also had concerns that the assumptions of the two consultants who <br />have verysimilar occupations were so different. He stated he would like to see consensus <br />on the assumptions, and some effort to provide facts to support them. <br />Commissioner Staul stated that all comments received this evening were in favor of the <br />request and asked who was notified of the public hearing. He stated he would like more <br />information. <br />Chair Scott stated that surrounding property owners were notified of the public hearing. <br />Ms. Haug provided a map of the area which was sent public hearing notices regarding the <br />request. <br />Commissioner Ives stated he had concerns with the timeliness of new information and felt <br />more time maybe needed to provide a response to Waste Management's questions <br />presented in the letter this evening. <br />City Attorney Peter Beck stated that potential impacts maybe decades out and there is <br />