5.3. SR 06-21-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: CU 10-09 Page 5 Tiller CUP Ciryof Elk River • The second to the last sentence in the second to the last paragraph of the Landfill's June 11 letter states that Tiller and ERL stand readyto address this and anyother concern raised by the mining expansion. However, no where in this letter, nor in the subsequent June 16, 2010 letter, nor in the voluminous attachments to these letters, does Tiller or the Landfill address the fact that the CUP amendment requested by Tiller would cause a violation of the Landfill's existing CUP for the Landfill property. dune 16, 2010 letter: C-n June 16, 2010, the Landfill submitted a second letter directlyto the City Council, which argues that Tiller has a right to mine the buffer area because of the State's public policy favoring mineral exploitation and the Judicial "natural expansion" doctrine. Response: Staff does not agree that denying a request to mine and obliterate a buffer area which has been provided for and agreed to over the course of many years runs afoul of any State policies favoring mineral exploration or the "natural expansion" Judicial doctrine. The City of Elk River has guided and zoned 2,000 to 3,000 acres of propertyfor mineral excavation, subject to the approval of conditional use permits and licenses. Designating and zoning this area for gravel mining does not grant the owners of property so designated and zoned the right to mine every acre so designated and zoned. It grants the right to apply for a conditional use permit and license to mine in this area subject to reasonable conditions, including the establishment of appropriate buffer areas. Denying a request to obliterate along- establishedbuffer area which includes natural topography and mature, native trees does not run afoul of either public policy or the natural expansion doctrine. More importantly, neither the supposed public policy favoring mineral exploitation nor the natural expansion doctrine, grant a right to mine and remove a buffer area established to screen and buffer a separate use: i.e., the Landfill. The 200-foot buffer area which Tiller seeks to mine was established on the Landfill property for the purpose of screening the Landfill from surrounding areas both during operation and after closure. The fact that the buffer has gravel under it does not confer a right, under the purported State policy or natural expansion doctrine, to remove that buffer and expose the Landfill to view. The cases that the June 161etter cites have been reviewed, and are not controlling here. Fast, the onlypublished Minnesota appellate decision that the June 161etter cites (Hazvkin.r a Talbot, 80 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1957)) doesn't go far enough to support the applicant's assertions here. Second, none of the cases involves a situation where a CUP imposed conditions that restricted the mining operation from mining the entire parcel in question. In cases where a zoning ordinance makes turns a mining operation into a nonconforming use, the mining operator normally must show that it intended all along to mine its entire parcel of land. Tiller cannot plausibly argue that it always intended to mine the buffer zone. 'Third, none of the cases that letter cites involved a situation where a court applied the natural expansion doctrine to allow a mining operation to expand into land that it did not own. This is important because Tiller does not currently own the land that is the subject of the N:\Departments\CommuniryDevelopment\Platming\Case Files\CCJP\CU 10-09 Tiller Corp\Staff report to CGCU 10-09.doc