6.3. SR 03-15-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

g~IG~S ~~~ MDRGAN Elie River Crty Council March 1 S, ~~ 1 ~ Page S ~2~ "thxs should be rcaffirmed by adapting ordinance an~.endrner~ts that specifically sa state" Id.. at 4 (emphasis added). 1. ~s ~+ asitia~.'~ which is ~ha~ ~he~~~ is ~a~ "a~b~ ~ i?,~~' ~~ ~~e ~~~~~~~ ~ ~r Cade ~Xlo~vamcc far ~~.~ buf~cr to be oc~~e o~ts~~c of the ~+' o~cr~a d~st~°ict is ~~ot "~c~~~ Contrary to l~ finding ~ ~, E has n. argued "that the City's ~~F ordinance is an~bigu~us." ~~.1 ~~, draft ord. at ~, Finding x ~ ~emplaasis added}. Based an City's repeated representation to J~t~d~e ~'arca in ~'.~ ~ that the parties' ~aa3 l:lost Canunity Agreet~ne~~t's "language c~ear~y refers to 'ex~sia~.s ~,nd near ~.ses a~. the landfill prapeoy,"' not to "e~pansians" an the 1~~.~~acre southern dcvclapment area (DAB prpper~y ~11411~ City Proposed ~enaa, and Order at ~~-27 ~c~nphasis added; see aZsa 121171~~ City oral argument ~1~~. ~ 47 at ~ }}, ERL a~~gued in its January ~~, ~~ ~ ~ letter as falla~s; liven its priox repeated raprescntatians ~a the Court, City cannot in gaud faith claim. that 1rT~.I., is baz~{ed by City Code ar atlae~~ regulatory recluircn.~ents from "cxpand~ing , .. an the l:~andfiill prape~•ty." City is bau~ld by xts reprasentatia~s to the Caurt~ such a canst~.•uctian ~f the parties' ~~03 Host Ca~nunity Agree~.ent wa~~ld otherwise improperly render City's "caopcratian" abli~ation n~aat. Where r~, in an event no such buffer re uiren~.ent in either Cha tar 3D ar Cho ter ~$ of file ~r~ Coda, And .~~ ca~~ satisfy l~in~a, R. 703~.~~i5's ~~~~faat buffer through. its a~rangenaants with the adjacent landowner. Moreover, City already lead its opportunity to identify its ab j actions to and can~a~s ~.~ ~.l~L's 73.4-acre landfrii expansion, including the I3.4~acre portion of the e~pansian. And City's sale abjection --~ x. ~., laal~ of ~F ----related just to the ~0 acres of the e~pansian oft the 1 a~.~-acre ~A property, not the 13.4 acres of the a~pansion on the existing ~ 37.4-ac~~e Landfill property. .~d~ at ~~3 ~foatnote omitted; emphasis added. Azad na~rlaere in its ~'e~ruary 4, ~~10 brief to Judge Marco did Elm represent that there was such an "an~bigu[ity~" in the existing City Ca~.a, X1411 ~ ~~ reply ~~~, at 3 -11. ~a the ccntrary, ~.~ eanclu.ded its brief Frith the follovaing clear state:~ent of its "posxtian"; . ~Ia axa~aunt of ~vardsitlaing or fingerpainting by City can change the feet that the Cit Coda does net ra uire that the state-mandated ~.~~mloot buffer be located