HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.12.04 PC PacketAGENDA
HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2014
HUGO CITY HALL
7:00 p.m.
A. ROLL CALL (Arcand, Gwynn, Kleissler, Knauss, Lessard, McRoberts, Rosenquist)
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. October 23, 2014
D. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Cindy Bellamy and Shirley Smith, Conditional Use Permit — 17260 Ingersoll Ave
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. OLD BUSINESS
G. ADJOURNMENT
*Reminder: Thursday, December 18th — Goal Setting Workshop at 7:00pm.
If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact
Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or riuba(aci.hu2o.mn.us, thank you.
Agenda Number 1) 1
CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING
APPLICATION STAFF REPORT
TO: Hugo Planning Commission
FROM: Rachel Juba, Planner
SUBJECT: Cindy Bellamy and Shirley Smith. Request for a conditional use permit
to allow double the amount of allowed animal units on property located at
17260 Ingersoll Ave N.
DATE: November 26, 2014 for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 4,
2014
ZONING: Agricultural (AG)
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 12, 2014 (including 60 -day extension)
1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow double the
amount of animal units allowed on property. The number of animal units allowed on the property
is determined by lots size. The applicant is requesting to have 14 horses on the property, where 7
is allowed by ordinance. The ordinance allows double the amount of animal units, with a CUP
and an approved facilities and waste management plan.
There have been questions on whether the property is 10 acres. After doing historical research on
the property and talking with the City Attorney, staff is considering the property 10 acres. It is in
staff s opinion that this is a valid application.
2. BACKGROUND:
In May, the City received a complaint for the property with concerns on the management of the
animal waste, drainage from the paddocks onto neighboring properties, and the excessive
number of horses. Staff inspected the property and found there was a violation. The applicant
had manure piles within the paddocks that had not been removed or spread for several years. The
drainage from the paddocks was going onto the neighboring property. The applicant had 18
Bellamy and Smith CUP
Page 2
horses on the property, 11 exceeding what is allowed by ordinance. Staff provided the applicant
with a letter outlining the violations and requested compliance.
Over the last few months staff has met with the property owner on the site on several occasions.
Staff has also made contact with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to ensure all
State regulations in regards to feedlots and manure stockpiling have been met. There have been
two compliance inspections on site with PCA staff. The applicant has been working with staff
and the PCA to correct the violations and to comply with City ordinance and State standards.
3. CONTEXT:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
The surrounding properties are zoned Agricultural (AG) and are guided as Agricultural (AG) in
the 2030 Land Use Plan. The properties are large lots and are either vacant or occupied by single
family homes.
B. Natural Characteristics of Site
The property is generally flat on the eastern portion and slopes down to the west. There is a
wetland complex on the western portion of the site and a DNR protected wetland on the
southeast corner of the site. A portion of the property is located within a FEMA designated
floodplain.
4. ANALYSIS:
Feedlot Regulations
A portion of the property is considered a feedlot by both the City and State. A feedlot is defined
as:
"...a lot or building, or combination of lots and buildings, intended for the confined breeding,
raising, or holding of animals, and specifically designed as a confinement area in which manure
may accumulate or where concentration of animals is such that vegetative cover cannot be
maintained. Open lots used for feeding and rearing of poultry are considered feedlots. Pastures
are not considered feedlots."
A feedlot is a permitted use in the Agricultural (AG) zoning district if certain performance
standards are met. An evaluation of the performance standards are below:
1. An environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is required for facilities meeting the standards
found in section 90-167.
The feedlot does not meet the requirements of a mandatory EAW. Feedlots with 50 or less
animal units are exempt from requiring an EAW.
Bellamy and Smith CUP
Page 3
2. No feedlot shall be located in the following areas:
(a)Within the wellhead protection district.
The feedlot is not located in a wellhead protection district.
(b)Within 300 feet of any lake, stream, or public waterbody in the city's shoreland
district.
The feedlot is not located within 300 feet from a lake, stream, or waterbody in the City's
shoreland district.
(e) Within 100 feet of any public drainage channel or wetland.
The feedlot is not located within 100 feet from a public drainage channel or public
wetland. There is a DNR protected wetland on the southeast corner of the property the
feedlot is approximately 120 feet from the public wetland.
3. Feedlots requiring a conditional use permit shall be operated in conformance with Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency Rules ch. 7020.
The State has regulations in regards to feedlots and manure stockpiling. These regulations were
evaluated during the property inspections that the PCA attended. The PCA has issued the
property owner with a letter stating the property complies will all applicable State regulations.
It is in staff's opinion that these standards have been met.
Number of Horses Allowed on the Property
During the initial inspection there were 18 horses on the property. The property is 10 acres in
size and according to the ordinance is allowed to have 7 horses. The ordinance allows double the
amount of animal units, with a CUP and approval of a facilities and waste management plan.
The applicant has been working on selling and removing horses from the property in order to get
down to the 14 horses they are requesting with the CUP application. Staff inspected the property
on November 24, 2014, and found that there are now 14 horses on the property. The applicant
understands that there shall be no more than 14 horses on the property and that breeding of the
horses shall not occur until the total number is less than 14 and additional horses can be
accommodated.
Facility and Waste Manaeement Plan
During the initial inspection of the property staff found a large manure pile that appeared to be
there for several years. There was also manure in the paddock areas that had not been cleaned for
a period of time. The applicant has removed the manure piles by spreading it on the pasture area
and has cleaned up and is maintaining the paddock areas. It is in staff s opinion that they are now
in good condition.
Bellamy and Smith CUP
Page 4
The applicant has summited a facility and waste management plan. The plan outlines the
management of each `lot" in the feedlot area in regards to frequency of manure removal and
paddock clean up, stockpile locations, removal of manure, and land application. Staff is
comfortable with the management plan as submitted.
The PCA allows manure stockpiling on properties for no longer than a year. The stockpiles shall
be spread on the pasture areas or removed from the property after a year.
As a condition of approval, staff is requiring Lot E to be graded to the dirt base, like the other
"lots" in the feedlots area, and all manure be removed from the property. This is work that shall
be completed at the time the culvert on the west side is relocated. This relocation is further
described in the next section.
Drainage
During an inspection of the property on August 21, 2014, with the PCA it was found that there
was run-off from the paddock areas in to the road ditch, the wetland to the north, and onto the
neighboring property through a culvert. The PCA stated there were violations in regards to water
quality discharge standards. The applicant was requested by the PCA to correct the State
violations in regards to the run-off in the road ditch and wetland. Staff requested the applicant to
re -direct the run-off away from the neighboring property onto their own property.
The applicant graded the paddock areas and used sandbags to provide berms around the fences in
areas in an effort to keep all run-off in the paddocks. After an inspection on September 22, 2014,
the PCA issued a letter to the applicant stating the property was in compliance with State rules.
There is a culvert on the west side of the paddocks that drains the paddock (Lot E). Although the
PCA stated that the drainage meets its water quality discharge standards, the drainage is going
onto the neighboring property. On October 24, 2014, staff met the applicant on the property to go
over ways to redirect the drainage and to relocate the culvert. Staff and the property owner
arrived at a solution that involves adding 100 feet of culvert along the north property line. The
applicant has not completed this to date, but it is a condition of approval. Redirecting the
drainage is not easy because the property naturally drains this way. The applicant will be
required to grade the paddock area to ensure the drainage will flow correctly to the culvert. The
applicant will be required to remove the existing culvert and add a new culvert at the correct
slope to redirect the drainage.
4. ANAYSIS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
A. Level of City Discretion in Decision -Making
The City's discretion in approving or denying a conditional use permit is limited to whether or
not the proposed application meets the standards outlined in the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Regulations. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the conditional use permit.
Bellamy and Smith CUP
Page 5
B. Conditional Use Permit
The keeping of horses is a permitted use in the Agricultural zoning district. A CUP is required
only because of the number of horses being kept on the property.
The Planning Commission must review the application for a conditional use permit with the
standards provided in Section 90-37 of the City Code. Staff used these standards to review the
application and found that the request meets all applicable standards as follows:
(1) The proposed use is permissible bylaw.
The ordinance allows double the amount of animal units, with a CUP and approval of a
facilities and waste management plan.
(2) The proposed use is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
The spirit and intent of the Livestock ordinance is to allow animals on properties in the
Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning district based on the number of acres of a
property. The property is zoned Agricultural and meets the acreage requirements to allow
livestock. The ordinance allows up to double the animal unit density by CUP subject to an
approved facility management and waste -handling plan. The applicant has applied for CUP
and has submitted a facility and waste management plan that is acceptable to the staff. It is
in staff's opinion that that the use meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
(3) The proposed use is compatible with the city's comprehensive plan, and the character of the
surrounding area.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as Agricultural and anticipates agricultural
activities to occur in this area. The plan cites existing land uses and states that agriculture
remains a major land use in the City, such as commercial farms, horse boarding, and hobby
farms. The purpose of the agricultural district is to provide an area for the use of land for
agricultural purposes.
The character of the area is comprised of large parcels of land, either vacant, occupying a
single family home and accessory buildings, or occupied with various agricultural uses.
The applicant is requesting 14 horses to be allowed on the property. The property has a
home, accessory buildings, and horses. The proposed use is compatible with the
comprehensive plan and is within the character of the area.
(4) The proposed use has adequate drainage, water supply, electrical, gas, and sewage
treatment facilities.
The PCA has issued the property owner a letter stating the property complies with State
regulations. With the condition to re -direct drainage on the property, the property will have
adequate drainage.
Bellamy and Smith CUP
Page 6
The property is served by a well and septic system.
(5) The proposed use has adequate road access, and does not reduce the safety or capacity of
the public road system. Road access shall be no lower than the regional food elevation.
The property has adequate road access from Ingersoll Avenue.
(6) The technical evaluation of the floodplain, if required, accurately represents the conditions
and boundaries of the floodplain area, as well as correctly represents the proposed use's
impact on the floodplain.
A portion of the property is within a FEMA designated floodplain. The use is not proposed
to impact the floodplain.
(7) The proposed use may not create a danger that materials may be swept onto other lands, or
downstream to the injury of others, or block bridges, culverts, or other hydraulic structures.
The proposed use would not obstruct the floodplain or increase the potential for flooding.
(8) The proposed use will not damage or reduce the benefits the public receives from public
waters.
The proposed use would not damage or reduce the benefits from any public waters.
(9) If located in the shoreland overlay district, the waterbody will be able to safely
accommodate the number, type, and uses of the watercraft the project will generate.
The proposed use would not involve the use of watercraft on public waters.
(10)If located in the shoreland overlay district, all structures and facilities are screened from
view from public waters.
The use is permitted in the Agricultural zoning district. The use itself is not required to be
screened. The applicant is simply requesting additional horses on site.
(11)If the permit is to approve a wetlands replacement plan, the plan is in conformance with the
rules of the state board of soil and water resources for such plans.
The applicant is not requesting a wetland replacement plan.
(12) The applicant or operator shall obtain all necessary state and local permits for the
conditional use.
The applicant would be responsible for obtaining all state and local permits, if any.
Bellamy and Smith CUP
Page 7
(13) The proposed use is adequately buffered and screened from noncompatible land uses and
public rights-of-way.
The use is permitted in the Agricultural zoning district. The use itself is not required to be
screened. The applicant is simply requesting additional horses on site.
5. CONCLUSION:
Although there are few items to complete in regards to conditions of approval, the applicant has
made significant improvements to the property since being aware of the violations. This has been
apparent through the site visits.
The property meets the City's performance standards for the feedlot. The feedlots and drainage
complies with State requirements. It is in staff s opinion that the applicant meets all criteria
necessary to approve a CUP.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is comfortable with the Facility and Waste Management Plan for the property.
Staff recommends approval of the CUP to allow up to 14 horses on the property, subject to the
conditions listed in the CUP.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. Resolution
4. Facility and Waste Management Plan
5. Culvert Relocation Information
6. Letters From PCA
7. Letters From Neighbor to the North
8. Recent Photos of Property
1 inch =200feet Site Map
NN
nS�
W+E
s
�yi.�.c�'k 4 ✓M` F R! 1='k.' .Ai �4:�gA�J :, J Y ��}},,
5.%� Y����frc xi't.w :1a .S.� t,�•'l' r5'�;''gy �+f_ Y��t..
CITY OF HUGO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DATE OF APPROVAL:
OWNER: Cindy Bellamy and Shirley Smith
17260 Ingersoll Ave N
Hugo, MN 55038
ADDRESS FOR WHICH CUP IS GRANTED: 17260 Ingersoll Ave N
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A
ZONING DISTRICT: Agricultural (AG)
THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWS FOR THE FOLLOWING:
Double the amount of horses allowed by ordinance on the property for a total of 14
horses.
THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. There shall be no more than 14 horses on the property at any time. The property
owner shall keep an up-to-date listing and description of all horses on file at City
Hall. The listing shall be updated at least annually, or as changes occur. No
breeding of horses shall occur that will cause the total number of horses on-site to
exceed 14.
2. The property shall comply with Section 90-241 Livestock and Poultry.
3. The property shall comply with the comments in the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) letters dated September 24, 2014, and October 20, 2014.
4. The property shall comply with applicable MPCA requirements. The property
owner shall have the property inspected each year by the MPCA and each year
provide the City with a compliance letter.
5. The property shall comply with the Facility and Waste Management Plan dated
November 2, 2014. (Exhibit B).
6. All Lots shall be graded and bermed to ensure that drainage stays on the property.
7. Lot E, in the Facility and Waste Management Plan, shall be graded to the dirt base
and all manure graded in this area shall be removed from the site. This shall be
completed no later than June 1, 2015. There shall be a staff inspection upon
completion.
8. The culvert west of Lot E, shall be relocated. Location and design shall be
reviewed and approved by the City and MPGA. This shall be completed no later
than June 1, 2015. There shall be a staff inspection upon completion.
9. Activities shall not impact or fill any wetlands without City and Watershed
District approval.
10. All stock piles shall be removed from the property within one year of original
placement. Record keeping of all stock piles shall be kept including location and
date stock pile was made.
11. All structures on the property shall meet setback requirements.
Tom Weidt, Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON)
On this day of , 2014, before me, a Notary
Public, personally appeared Tom Weidt, Mayor of the City of Hugo, a Minnesota
municipality within the State of Minnesota, and that said instrument was signed on behalf
of the City of Hugo by the authority of the City Council of the City of Hugo, and Tom
Weidt, mayor, acknowledge said instrument to be the free act and deed of said City of
Hugo.
Notary Public
Dated: . 2014.
Cynthia Bellamy
Shirley Smith
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON)
On this day of 2014, before me, a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared and
to me known as the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,
who stated that they are the owners of the property this permit applies to, and
acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed.
Notary Public
This document was drafted by: Hugo City Council
14669 Fitzgerald Ave N
Hugo, MN 55038
RESOLUTION 2014 -
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CINDY BELLAMY AND
SHIRLEY SMITH ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17260 INGERSOLL AVENUE
NORTH
WHEREAS, Cindy Bellamy and Shirley Smith have requested approval of a conditional use
permit to allow double the amount of horses allowed by ordinance on the property for a total of
14 horses for the property legally described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing
and recommends approval and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOVLED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Cindy Bellamy
and Shirley Smith have requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow double the
amount of horses allowed by ordinance on the property for a total of 14 horses, subject to the
following conditions:
1. There shall be no more than 14 horses on the property at any time. The property owner
shall keep an up-to-date listing and description of all horses on file at City Hall. The
listing shall be updated at least annually, or as changes occur. No breeding of horses shall
occur that will cause the total number of horses on-site to exceed 14.
2. The property shall comply with Section 90-241 Livestock and Poultry.
3. The property shall comply with the comments in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPGA) letters dated September 24, 2014, and October 20, 2014.
4. The property shall comply with applicable MPCA requirements. The property owner
shall have the property inspected each year by the MPCA and each year provide the City
with a compliance letter.
5. The property shall comply with the Facility and Waste Management Plan dated
November 2, 2014. (Exhibit B).
6. All Lots shall be graded and bermed to ensure that drainage stays on the property.
Lot E, in the Facility and Waste Management Plan, shall be graded to the dirt base and all
manure graded in this area shall be removed from the site. This shall be completed no
later than June 1, 2015. There shall be a staff inspection upon completion.
Resolution 2014- Bellamy CUP
8. The culvert west of Lot E, shall be relocated. Location and design shall be reviewed and
approved by the City and MPGA. This shall be completed no later than June 1, 2015.
There shall be a staff inspection upon completion.
9. Activities shall not impact or fill any wetlands without City and Watershed District
approval.
10. All stock piles shall be removed from the property within one year of original placement.
Record keeping of all stock piles shall be kept including location and date stock pile was
made.
11. All structures on the property shall meet setback requirements.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 15, 2014.
Tom Weidt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michele Lindau, City Clerk
Feedlot (Paddock) Management
17260 Ingersoll Avenue No
Overview of feedlot (paddock) areas drawn to scale
17260 Ingersoll Ave No
RECEIVED
Page 1 of 5
Per �1 O�
y�
1
�--�-- --rte
1 n _
GA
i
,*•
rR
t rfi• �
`40
r �
GA
i
Feedlot (Paddock
FLot
Lot B A
1
This lot is used primarily to house one stallion. It has been used occasionally to accommodate a
couple of foals or a mare and foal. This lot is usually maintained monthly (or more frequently) during
the spring/summer/fall months. Manure can be stock piled in this area if it is removed yearly. We
don't expect the need to stock pile in this area, other than short term temporary piles before
removal. Stock piles will be spread on pasture areas or will be removed from this property totally
and spread on local farm fields. Projected amount of manure that is removed "monthly" during
spring/summer/fall clean-ups is 200 cubic feet. (4 small spreaders full) One small spreader=50
cubic feet. Projected amount of decomposed manure that will be removed "after winter" clean-up
is100 cubic feet. (2 small spreaders full).
Feedlot (Paddock) B
SIxAP«PW I Lot B
Lot C 1 Lot B
Lot B
This lot is primarily used to house two pregnant or nursing mares with their two foals during the
spring/summer/fall foaling season. Weanling foals are kept in this area until they are approximately
one year old after the mothers are removed. This area may also be used for a horse that may
require special care. This area has temporary fence divisions depending on the usage at the time.
During the foaling season, the manure is removed daily from this lot (25 cubic feet) 1/2 small
manure spreader. Manure is spread on the pasture areas during non -winter months every other
day. Manure can be stock piled in this area if it is removed yearly. Stock piles will be spread on
pasture areas or will be removed from this property totally and spread on local farm fields. Projected
amount of decomposed manure that will be removed during "after winter" clean up is 200 cubic feet.
(4 small spreaders full) One small spreader=50 cubic feet.
Page 3 of 5
Feedlot (Paddock) C
Wet Land Area
Lot B
W PoeePJr
L six�ru.
U)
WI
Lot B
This lot is used primarily to house one to four horses. This lot is usually maintained monthly (or
more frequently) during the spring/summer/fall months depending on the number of horses in this
area. Manure can be stock piled in this area if it is removed yearly, however we don't expect to
stock pile, other than short term temporary piles before removal. Stock piles will be spread on
pasture areas or will be removed from this property totally and spread on local farm fields. Projected
amount of decomposed manure that will be removed during "after winter" clean-up is 100 to 300
cubic feet. (2-6 small spreaders full) One small spreader=50 cubic feet.
Feedlot (Paddock) D
'
Shed
Lot D
This lot is used primarily to house one stallion. This lot is usually maintained monthly (or more
frequently) during the spring/summer/fall months. Manure can be stock piled in this area if it is
removed yearly. We don't expect the need to stock pile in this area, other than short term temporary
piles before removal. Stock piles will be spread on pasture areas or will be removed from this
property totally and spread on local farm fields. Projected amount of manure that is removed
monthly during spring/summer/fall clean up is 200 cubic feet. (4 small spreaders full) One small
spreader=50 cubic feet. Projected amount of decomposed manure that will be removed "after
winter" clean up is100 cubic feet. (2 small spreaders full) One small spreader=50 cubic feet.
Page 4 of 5
Feedlot (Paddock) E
Shed
Stock Pile Area
Lot E
This lot is used to house the remaining herd of mares through -out the year. These horse are also
allowed to graze daily out on pasture areas during non -winter months. Manure can be stock piled
anywhere within this area if it is removed yearly. Stock piles could possibly be spread on pasture
areas or will probably be removed from this property totally and spread on local farm fields.
Projected amount of decomposed manure that will be removed "after winter" clean-up is 700 to 900
cubic feet. (14 to 18 small spreaders full) One small spreader=50 cubic feet.
Note: Since July 4, 2014 we have used our 50 cubic foot spreader to distribute the manure from our
paddocks (feedlots). Our experience has been that with normal regular rain that after one week the
spread is barely detectable. We do not regularly use bedding. We have 5 primary pasture areas so
rotation of grazing can occur. The horses are not allowed in the "spread areas" until manure spread
is broken down to the barely detectable level.
Spreader Dimensions L 64" x W 2' 11"x H 17'
Page 5 of 5
Proposed Drain .
Locations
A=100 feet of 6" or 8"drain
i
Existing Culvert
930
LW
..
='
r ..' 936
Minnesota Poi@uti®n C®ntrro0 Agency
_ = 5201-afayette Road North I St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-0194 i 651-296-6300
800-657-3864 I 651-282-5332 TTY l www.pca.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer
October 20, 2014
Ms. Cindy Bellamy
17260 Ingersoll Avenue North
Hugo, MN 55038
RE: September 22, 2014, Inspection
Cindy Bellamy Facility
Feedlot Registration Number 163-123144
Dear Ms. Bellamy:
Please find enclosed a Minnesota Feedlot (Non-NPDES) Inspection Checklist (Checklist) for the Cindy
Bellamy facility (Facility) located at 17260 Ingersoll Avenue North, Hugo, Washington County,
Minnesota. An inspection was conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff on
September 22, 2014. Others present at the inspection included Cindy Bellamy and Shirley Smith. The
inspection consisted of a Compliance inspection. The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate the
Facility for compliance with Minnesota feedlot rules and statutes.
The MPCA has determined that the Facility was in compliance with the Minn. R. ch. 7020 at the time of
inspection.
If you have any questions regarding the inspection report, please contact me at 651-7575-2751.
Sincrg,rely,
Richard Gruene
Environmental Specialist 1
Feedlot Section
Watershed Division
RG:cme
Enclosure
cc: Rachel Juba, City of Hugo
:? Minnesota
CoMinnesota Feedlot
Controltrol Agency
t. Pauli MN 55155-4194LafayetteRoadNorth
S(Nol l-NPDES) Inspection Checklist
St.
NPDES/SDS Feedlot Program
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/
State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS)
Doc Type: Inspection (wq-f3-45e)
Key at the end of the checklist
Instructions: The MPCA or Delegated County staff should complete this form upon an inspection to evaluate non-NPDES permitted
feedlots for compliance with Minnesota feedlot rules and statutes. A copy of the form will be.retumed to the feedlot owner following the
inspection. _
General Information
Name of facility: Shirley Smith / Cindy Bellamy Date of inspection (mmlddtyyyy): 9/22/2014
Registration No: 163-123144 .Inspector Name: Richard Gruenes
Owner/Operator: Shirley Smith / Cindy Bellamy Others Present: Shirley Smith / Cindy Bellamy
Phone: 651-653-6217 - Fax: E-mail:
Weather Conditions (at time of inspection): clear and sunny
Facility Location
County: washington Twp: Cityof Hugo Sect: 3 Qtr: NE
Facility address: 17260 Ingersoll Ave. N.
City: Hugo State: MN Zip Code: 55038 Parcel ID:
Inspection Type . (check all that apply): Note: cannot be changed except via customization window/form
(v]Tacility Compliance . ❑ Land Application Level II Records Review ❑ Land Application Level III Field Inspection
A;. Feedlot History (Date format: mmtdd/yyyy)
Type of most recent inspection: Compliance Date of most recent inspection: 8/21/2014
Type of most recent enforcement action: Date of enforcement action:
Permit Type:
Date of most recent registration:
Issuance Date: Expiration Date:
8/21/2014 double-click to
A.1 Does a MinnFarm or FLEval exist for the feedlot?
A2 Is the feedlot located in a Drinking Water Supply I
A.3 Is the feedlot located in Shoreland?
A.4 Enrolled in the Open Lot Agreement?
B. Feedlot Components Animal (head) Numbers
wq-f3-45e Feedlot (Non-NPDES) Inspection Checklist Revised 12-4-12.
13. Feedlot Components (continued)
'"' double-click "'
to insert checkmarks
in these columns
Checklist
Questions
Y
N -.
NA
I NI
Notes:
B.1
is Registration current (date within previous 4 -year block)?
of Natural Resources (DNR)? 7020.2015, sub . 2
0.1
f32
Have animal units and animal species, types and numbers changed since
3.2
Are clean -water diversions in place; operational and maintalned?
_ .
the most recent registration or inspection?
3.3
Are runoff controls in place, operational, and maintained?
y
Have animal holding areas or manure storage areas changed since the
Is there evidence of runoff leaving the open lot(s) or runoff oontrol(s)?
B.3
most recent pemtit, Notice of Construction or Expansion, MlnnFarm or
(past or present)
.,
.-...
Inspection?
rf�'bIly�ar,
ra
•
s@
E
h.4
4 ' ;:
Inspection Requirement
c
NC
NA
NI
fid
Construction or expansion requirements met
_.
commonly owned feedlots adjacent to or within ''%mile of this feedlot
PPgD
020.0405; su b. 2
Is there evidence runoff reached surface waters or tile intakes,
sinkholes, fractured bedrock, well, mine or quarry?
meet or exceed the CAFO threshold (# of head per species) or 1,000 -
�: ✓•:
C. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Identification
. Checklist Questions
Y
N
NA
I NI
Notes:
-
Does the maximum capacity of this feedlot meet or exceed the CAP
:.
of Natural Resources (DNR)? 7020.2015, sub . 2
0.1
threshold (# of head per species) or 1,000 animal units?
3.2
Are clean -water diversions in place; operational and maintalned?
_ .
(if yes the feedlots must seek NPDES Permit Coverage)
3.3
Are runoff controls in place, operational, and maintained?
y
Does the owner own (all or part of) other feedlots adjacent to or within y.'`•
Is there evidence of runoff leaving the open lot(s) or runoff oontrol(s)?
mile of this feedlot?-
(past or present)
.,
.-...
If Yes- Evaluate the following:
rf�'bIly�ar,
ra
i :•P
s@
E
h.4
4 ' ;:
..
Does the maximum capacity of this feedlot combined with other
_.
commonly owned feedlots adjacent to or within ''%mile of this feedlot
PPgD
3.4
Is there evidence runoff reached surface waters or tile intakes,
sinkholes, fractured bedrock, well, mine or quarry?
meet or exceed the CAFO threshold (# of head per species) or 1,000 -
�: ✓•:
inadequate buffer, steep slopes, channels, matted or dead vegetation,
(e.g.9 P P 0
C.2
animal units?
clean water run-on, stortmdater flow)
rG
(If yes the feedlots must seek a NPDES Permit - refer to MPCA)
Does the owner use common land application acres for This feedlot
-
and other commonly owned feedlots, and if so do the feedlots
...
combined meet or exceed the CA FO threshold (# of head per species)
.,
or 1,000 animal units?
if yes the feedlots must a NPDES Permit- refer to MPGA)
-
Is the owner required to seek NPDES/SDS permit coverage for this
C.4
feedlot and other commonly owned feedlots?
(Refer to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA))
1. Open Lot Agreement (OLA)
2. Animal Confinement Barn(s)
Checklist Questions
2.1 Is any manure seepage from bare
Does uoslooe water drain throuol
3. Open Lot(s)
Not Applicable to this Facility
NA I NI.
Checklist Questions
Y
N
NA
NI
31
Do animals have access to a lake classified by the Minnesota Department
:.
of Natural Resources (DNR)? 7020.2015, sub . 2
3.2
Are clean -water diversions in place; operational and maintalned?
_ .
v
3.3
Are runoff controls in place, operational, and maintained?
y
Is there evidence of runoff leaving the open lot(s) or runoff oontrol(s)?
(past or present)
.,
If Yes -Evaluate the following: -
I +
f"'
4 ' ;:
Is runoff currently reaching surface waters?
PPgD
3.4
Is there evidence runoff reached surface waters or tile intakes,
sinkholes, fractured bedrock, well, mine or quarry?
inadequate buffer, steep slopes, channels, matted or dead vegetation,
(e.g.9 P P 0
e"w. `
clean water run-on, stortmdater flow)
rG
Page 1 of 3 of the Checklist
Notes:
Is there evidence runoff could impact ground water?
V
4. Feed Storage Area(s)
V
NO I NA I NI
Checklist Questions
Y
N
NA
I NI
Notes
4.1
Are the soils beneath the storage area coarse-textured?
Is there evidence of runoff leaving the feed storage area or feed storage
^ ['
area runoff controls? (past or present)
If Yes - Evaluate the following:
r7r�
ryi
zi'„
.
Is runoff currently reaching surface waters?
4.2
Is there evidence runoff reached surface waters or tile intakes,
sinkholes, fractured bedrock, well, mine or quarry?
=-'sh-'r
(e.ginadequate buffer, steep slopes, channels, matted or dead vegetation,
clean water run-on, stormwater flow)
�•^
I:yyr-"+-:
Is there evidence runoff could impact ground water?
(e.g., pending, coarse-textured soils, depth to water table)
Is more than 1,000 tons of sweet corn silage stored on site at any one
time?
4.5
If Yes - Does the owner have a Feedlot NPDES or Industrial SDS
`
permit?
If no, refer to MPGA.
Inspection
Requirement
C
NO
NA
NI
4.7
Feed Storage Area discharge requirements met.
17020.2003, subp. 1 &.3, 7050.0210, subp. 2 & 13, 7060.0600, subid, 2
5. Milkhouse Waste Handling System(s)
6. Short-term Manure Stockpile Site(s)
7. Permanent Manure Stockpile Site(s)
8. Manure Compost Site
9., 10., & 11. Liquid Manure Storage Area(s) (LMSA)
12. Poultry Barn Floor(s)
13. Carcass Management
Not a Component of this Facility
Not a Component of this Facility
Not a Component of this Facility
Not a Component of this Facility
Not a Component of this Facility
Not a Component of this Facility
Not a Component of this Facility
14. Level I Land Application of Manure Record Keeping for less than 100 AyNon-CAFO)
No manure application record keeping requirements for this size facility
16. Level II Land Application of Manure Inspection(Non-CAFO)
Not inspected for this facility
16. Level III Land Application of Manure Inspection(Non-CAFO)
Not inspected for this facility
17. Animal Feedlot and Manure Storage Area Closure Not Applicable to this Facility
18. Interim Permit Not Applicable to this Facility
Page 2 of 3 of the Checklist
18. Summary of Environmental Upgrades Not Applicable for this Inspection .
End of Inspection.
T
Or
C0
Compliance -At the time of the inspection, the feedlot and/or owner meet the requirements of applicable state rules and statutes or
permit conditions.
NC =Non-Compllance =At the time of the inspection, the feedlot and/or owner do not meet the requirements of applicable state rules and
statutes or ermil conditions
NA = Not Applicable -The condition is not present at this feedlot.
Ni. = Not Inspected - The condition was not Inspected.
Y = Yes - Does not indicate compliance or noncompliance.
N = Nd -.Does not indicate compliance or non-compliance.
Checklist Question = Checklist questions are used by the inspector to evaluate feedlot conditions.
Inspection Requirement = Inspection requirements are statements that summarize the regulatory requirements of applicable state rules and
statutes or permit conditions
Optional
20. Number of animals at the feedlot(Do Not use as a Registration Update Form).
(Animal Unitl Number of I Animal units
ael;..olti...e Factors
animals present present at
i - mature caw (milked or dry) over 1,000 Its.
r - mature cow (milked or dry) under 1,000 lbs.
heifer
calf calf
- slaughter steer or stock cow
feeder cattle (stocker or backgrounding) or heifer
-crow and calf pair
-
veal — Can
MW a_ _ .r
Swine - over 300 pounds
e 0 ¢
Swine - between 55 and 300 pounds
7 03 -
Sw)oe - under 55 pounds (and separated from sow)
MW
Horse
10 " 16 I'6
Sheep or lamb
Chickens - all sizes with liquid manure system
IM --
Chickens- broiler 5lbs. and over -dry manure system
1e
Chickens - broiler under 5lbs. - dry manure system
=71,
Chickens - layers 5 lbs. and over- dry manure system
Chickens - layers under 5 lbs. - dry manure system"'"
Turkeys - over 5 lbs.
Turkeys - under 5 lbs.
d -
Ducks - dry manure system
Ducks _ liquid madure system
Other animals (not listed above - specify In space below):
- -
-
Total number of animal units at the
time of the inspection - - -
Is this facility a CAFO? - '_ �txffr'
Page 3 of 3 of the Checklist
This sheet provides addilonal area for notes that are not able to fit within checklist notes area. Simply select which
section requires additional notes via the drop down menu and then type the additional notes. The cell will automatically
expand to display notes but it does still have a limit (4 09.5 pixels of height). You may want to adjust the page margins
prior to printing so that all the extra un -used no tes areas do not print.
(These instnmtions/noles (above) will not bipatl of a printed copy)
Additional Notes
This page is to provide additional area to provide notes that did not fit within the designated checklist area. .
The notes here are in addition to the notes contained within the checklist.
Checklist
Page 2 of 1 of the Additional Notes
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North I St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 1651-296-6300
800-657-3864 1 651-282-5332 TTY I www.pca.state.mn.us I Equal Opportunity Employer
September 24, 2014
Ms. Cindy Bellamy
17260 Ingersoll Avenue North
Hugo, MN 55038
RE: August 21, 2014, Inspection - Shirley Smith and Cindy Bellamy Farm
Feedlot Registration Number 163-123144
Dear Ms. Bellamy:
Capt
Please find enclosed a Minnesota Feedlot Non -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Facility Inspection Checklist (Checklist) for the Shirley Smith and
Cindy Bellamy Farm (Facility) located at 17260 Ingersoll Avenue North, Hugo, Washington County,
Minnesota. An inspection was conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff on
August 21, 2014. Also present at the inspection were Cindy Bellamy, Shirley Smith, and City of Hugo staff
Michele Lindau and Rachel Juba. The inspection consisted of a compliance inspection, and the purpose
was to evaluate the Facility for compliance with Minnesota feedlot rules and statutes.
The following is a summary of the MPCA staffs findings and comments resulting from the inspection. Please
refer to the enclosed Checklist for additional details.
Alleged Violations
1. Minn. R. 7020.2003, WATER QUALITY DISCHARGE STANDARDS, subp. 3.
An owner of an animal feedlot or a manure storage area shall comply with the
effluent limitations in part 7053.0305 unless the animal feedlot or the manure
storage area is subject to the effluent limitation requirements in subpart 2 or
subject to an effluent limitation established in a permit issued under this chapter.
The MPCA staff observed open -lot runoff to the road ditch that is located on the east of the feedlot that
did not have sufficient filtration to meet Minn. R. 7020.2003.
The MPCA staff discovered open -lot runoff to a type 3 wetland that is located north of the feedlot without
sufficient filtration to meet Minn. R. 7020.2003.
Corrective Actions
The feedlot runoff water is required to meet Minn. R. 7020.2003 Water Quality Discharge Standards.
By September 29, 2014, submit an Interim Permit Application unless your Facility has been verified by the
MPCA that it has returned to compliance, according to Minn. R. 7020.2003.
Ms. Cindy Bellamy
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the inspection report, please contact me at 651-757-2751.
Sincerely,
R rd Gruen@
Environmental Specialist 1
Feedlot Section
Watershed Division
RG:czh
Enclosure
® Checklist
cc: Rachel Juba, City of Hugo
LC HW �DM LOXN LOXCiV4 bavtO KeC, I,
t 7 3"l (o i haorsa i f AV e -
November 4, 2014
Proposal for: 17260 Ingersoll Ave. N., Hugo, MN (REVISED)
For reference, front paddocks is first two pens closest to Ingersoll Ave. N.,
second paddock would include pens immediately west of the barn to the ally
way and the rear or third paddock is the large pen located farthest to the
west.
1.) Reduce horse herd to Hugo City Ordinance 90-241 allowed animal
population of 6 horses. Allow 6 months for the reduction as long as
property owner is actively pursuing reduction of the herd. Continued
clean up of front paddock area is a must, the areas that are being kept
clean must continue to be cleaned.
2.) Immediately relocate horses from rear paddock area to some other
part of the property while the reduction is taking place. As soon as
possible, start removing from the property the waste in the rear
paddock. This clean up needs to be done with in 90 days or with in
45 days of the spring thaw. Before any horses are placed in this area
again, the ditch must be moved to prevent run off onto neighboring
property. All manure and organic materials are to be removed from
the property and down to the original grade.
3.) Remove packed down waste in middle paddock from the property.
Install a dirt berm on property side of paddock high enough to prevent
direct run off onto adjoining properties wetlands to north. Restore
natural run off flow to south from paddocks. All manure and organic
materials are to be removed from the property and down to the
original grade.
4.) Rearrange paddocks to help prevent manure run off into surrounding
wetlands and onto surrounding properties.
5.) Comply with any other City Ordinance, Washington County or State
of Minnesota Regulation that pertains to this property that are not
listed here.
6.) In no less then two years after compliance to the above, property may
reapply for a conditional use permit to allow for additional animals.
Given proper management practices and waste management program
for the property, we would be willing to allow additional animals.
7.) The City of Hugo needs to do regular inspections of no more then 90
days apart to insure compliance. If found to be in continued violation
with above items and property owners refuse to comply, the City of
Hugo must take legal action to bring property into compliance at the
cost of the property owner.
SA.
AV
;41
17
AK
YY
te
r
I�
j
h
Ii
I�
s
!
*112
�k
k !
� `
n-.
is
� • I'
\� id I
Al r �,
e
Tv .
y
4 k
/
kti 'r4 I -1
)x,
\rte
r r'.
•4
k
�
,1
L
♦,i
�!
J
r
1 4 r r
C
/11
J \ I
s
!
I
Tv .
k.
sr
r r'.
k
�
�
L
�!
J
1 u
u r h s
yo It A
/
UV 4�vr w.• Yi/k�1 ar�s}�5y
Ism
z:i
> ��,. r <r ref IFs<!• ..'bw�i '� Q ire g+ }4....
3 31s i
� '�y ° aYa�
i a Y t ✓7 h 4 w z F`
1
1l � ti
Mv
_ `c t Y yl.tyl•vi L `4E ]Y"P S
r
a / tV 11 YP 1 '4]2a V ty
1
�
��.•
'�C �
'` li YL .� 91 �.M kit
� �t
_
�• ,� r
tit e >^t \/ 1
�.�
1
3w
-'
MINUTES
HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 23, 2014
Call to Order
Chairman Gwynn called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
PRESENT: Arcand, Gwynn, Kleissler, & McRoberts
ABSENT: Knauss, Rosenquist, Lessard
ALSO PRESENT: Rachel Juba, Planner
Connor Schaefer, Community Development Intern
Bryan Bear, City Administrator
Approval of Minutes
Arcand made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of
October 9, 2014.
Ayes: Arcand, Gwynn, Kleissler
Abstentions: McRoberts
Motion carried.
Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf — Site Plan —15106 Francesca Avenue North
Planner, Rachel Juba, presented on the site plan for Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf.
The applicant is requesting approval of a 1,500 square foot building for its new location on a
0.58 acre property. The food shelf recently acquired a property with money it received from a
Community Development Block Grant administered by Washington County. The property is
located in the General Industrial (I-3) zoning district.
Juba presented on the Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf site plan based on the following
subjects: building setbacks, lot coverage, building height, parking, lighting, landscaping, building
materials, signage, screening, stormwater management, utilities, and street access. It is in staff's
opinion that the application meets the requirements. Staff recommended approval for the Hugo
Good Neighbor Food Shelf site plan.
Cindy Petty, a volunteer with the Hugo Good Neighbor Food Shelf, addressed the Commission.
She asked if signs were allowed to be put up around the site during construction. Juba answered
saying the ordinance allows for this. Petty then asked if the building could be used prior to the
landscaping being completed. Juba answered saying the City has accommodated past
developments and recommends a meeting with the Building Department before issuing a
building permit and issuing a certificate of occupancy.
Chairman Gwynn opened the public hearing. No one from the public commented. Chairman
Gwynn closed the public hearing.
McRoberts made a motion, Arcand seconded, to recommend approval for the Hugo Good
Neighbor Food Shelf site plan, located at 15106 Francesca Avenue North.
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting Update
Juba updated the Commission on the following rescheduled Planning Commission meeting
dates:
a. Thursday, November 27, 2014 to Thursday, November 20, 2014
b. Thursday, December 11, 2014 to Thursday, December 4, 2014
c. Thursday, December 25, 2014 to Thursday, December 18, 2014
Adiournment
McRoberts motioned, Kleissler seconded, to adjourn at 7:13 pm.
All Ayes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Connor Schaefer
Community Development Intern