3.1. 05-17-2010 DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes Page 6 May 17, 2010 options could be done but would be very costly. She further reviewed the other two alternatives that Mr. Ledvina discussed as noted in her email. Mr. Perry stated the landfill doesn't see the three alternatives as possible. He stated Item # 1 in his memo isn't completed yet because the landfill would like city approval prior to proceeding with costly engineering work and the city could add a condition to the approval requiring MPCA permits. Mr. Perry introduced landfill employee Deb Walters who reviewed Item # 3 in his memo. Deb Walters, landfill employee -Reviewed the photographs handout. She stated there is a slight view of the existing landfill in photo #3. She stated you can't see the landfill until you get to photo #20 at the Tiller mining operation entrance. Mr. Perry reviewed Item # 2 in his memo. He stated the city has never raised issue in the past with regards to property interest being obtained. He stated purchase agreements aren't typically given out and wanted the city to provide some sort of protection to the parties of the agreement if its submission is required. Mr. Perry discussed Item # 2b in his memo. He stated the landfill had to submit this application for a conditional use permit because the city would argue that the subject 13 acres weren't in the original application. He stated the landfill isn't sure which way the court will rule and the landfill also has timeline issues. He stated the city still has time under the 60 day rule to table this application until the court rules on its decision and it may also help the city avoid additional litigation. He stated the only issue the city should consider is the 200 ft buffer, which he believed could be approved with a condition that Item 2.b. (1) or (2) {from his memo} occurs. Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. Mr. Beck stated that whether the landfill has other expansion alternatives is not one of the criteria for approving or denying this conditional use permit, but that this is only an observation in the staff report. He stated Mr. Ledvina noted there are alternatives for expansion on existing landfill property in his report. Mr. Beck stated the landfill keeps saying there are no alternatives but Ms. Stolz stated tonight that the alternatives could be done but would be costly. Mr. Beck stated Mr. Perry's statement that whenever any conditions can be conceived they are required to be attached to the conditional use permit and the Council is obligated to approve the permit (based on the two cases cited in Mr. Perry's memo) is incorrect. Mr. Beck stated these two cases don't mandate a City Council to issue a conditional use permit for violations of state regulations or city ordinance. He stated that a fording that an application doesn't comply with existing law is a legally sufficient reason for denial of a conditional use permit. Mr. Beck stated the landfill, in their original application, agreed to maintain the 200 foot buffer. He stated in this application the landfill is proposing to push waste up to a property line and there is no evidence that this property line has been moved; therefore this application does not comply with state regulation. He noted the city hasn't received any requests to consolidate the parcels or to move the property line 200 feet.