|
<br />~11~ Rivex• City Council
<br />larch ~ ~a ~~~~
<br />Page 7
<br />I~anitaring wells south a~` the ~~.~- proposed ~A~; 3 ~ ~~~wA, P-~ l 5L, 3 ~ ~-
<br />~w~A, Pp3 l ~L, ~ l ~-C~w.A, P~3 ~ ~L, 3 l $pCwA, P~~ l 8L, 3 l 9w~wA
<br />Monita~•i~.g well east of the BF~L; ~ ~-~v~'A
<br />fix, 157. And City, in concert with SPCA and ~l~erburne County, has approved each and every
<br />one of these ~nanitaring points outside of the ~~' overlay district. exhibit 15~ is but a sampling
<br />of the significant docun~entatio~a of these approvals, ~iadeed ~T~L was fo~~ced by City to pay
<br />City's environmental consultant tens of thousands of dollars to review and apprQVe of these
<br />Mans, Bx.15~.
<br />Predictably, once ~~.~., identified these ~nanitoring weds as being located, with City
<br />approval, ~a~~tside of the SwF overlay district, Bccl~ argued for the exclusion of ~~.onxta~~ing wells
<br />fiyo~r~ "all components of the landfill." ill ~Il q Becl~ demo. at ~-~, Becl~ recognized that
<br />monitoring wells are, in fact, "components" of the landfill, but he nevertheicss canclusarily
<br />argued that o~ "all other components of e Landfill, including ~~l}~ waste disposal areas, ~~~}~
<br />gas wells, ~~3~~ service roads, r~4}~ buildings and ~~~~~ other infrastructure," including (~~ t'buffer
<br />areas,,` are -'required to be , . ,within the solid waste Facility ~C~verlaY~ district." ~'~; at 2-~
<br />~ernphasis added}, Becl~ conspicuously failed, however, to provide City Code basis for this
<br />narrow excl~~sion, City is bound by the language of its City Code, not its la~ryer's ~~ hoc
<br />amendments thereto. Neither the existing City Code nor the New Buffer ordinance allow for
<br />Becl~'s interpretation, A.t best far City, a rewrite aftl~e New Buffer ordinance is required,
<br />'rhe key ~ustifrcation far the New duffer ordinance -~ ~, ~., City's purported 2Z~yea~•
<br />history of requiring ~e buffer to be within the SwF averiay district --~ also fails, exhibit 1G0
<br />directly refutes Findings 5 and ~ and Becl~'s ''strangest" defense thereof. Bxlaibit l ~~ illustrates
<br />mare definitively what is already shown an the Maps ~-~ of exhibit ~~ --namely that the entire
<br />b~~ffer along most of the active disposal area of the west side of the landfill ~~. ~., Cells l 3 ~ l ~~
<br />extends clearly and u~nnistal~ably o~~tside cif the ~~U~'overlay district, Bx,1~4.
<br />Because Cells l ~3 ~ l ~ were "active" beginning in approximately l 999 and conti~aue to be
<br />"active?' today, City had to and. did. approve of the placement of the buffer outside of the '~~`
<br />overlay district far at least the last l ~ years. ~xhs.1~1~~2, fndeed City staffs larch ZU, 2~4~
<br />staff report even "noteCd~ that the proposed finished contours Hof the waste disposals extend rote
<br />th.e ~~a foot buffer strip in several iacations." Bx. l ~~ at 3. ~f course, each of the several times
<br />that City approved of an amendir~ent or renewal of FI~I~'s landfill CAP sinoe l ~~~ ~xncluding dust
<br />days agog, it necessarily determined that the land~`ill complied. with "all requirements" in the
<br />exzsting City Code, including City'spthen interp~•etatian of where the buffer had. to be located
<br />relative to the ~'~` overlay district. ~'ee In~~~~~~a~~ Pa~v~~ ~'~. v, ,Nob~~s C~un~ .~d. g ~ l7 N.w,~d
<br />56b, 579 ~Mi1n~, ~~04~ approval of zoning bequest "signif~ies~ that lts~ determination that the
<br />
|