|
BI~I~~S ~~va MC~~~A~1
<br />~iiC River Cifiy Council
<br />March ~~, 2Q1 ~
<br />gage ~
<br />V~l.~.le he advises Cifiy Council that, "even if the ~r~inance A..endx~.enfi can be
<br />characterised as a change, ~e City has the right to mate such a change to its City Code" ~z~ afi
<br />~}, l~ecl~ nevertheless concludes that a precanc~itia~~ to staffs "reconu~encl[afiion]" is that Cifiy
<br />Council "believe[] tlaafi the cur City Cade requires fihat all eompo~~enfis of ~ solid wasfie
<br />~`acility, inelu~ing the required. lauffe~ areas, be located within the solid wasfie ~`acilities
<br />[Overlays I~istriet." ~~' at 4 ~en~phasis add.e~}, lased on the above, City Council cannot in goad.
<br />faith hold such a "belie[f],'"
<br />To the extent that Cifiy nevertheless wishes, per its dew buffer 0~°~x~.ance, to ~.iseant~nue
<br />zfis over decadedlo~ag approval of landfill "components" ~e.,~,, buffer, n~a~ifiaring wells, etc,
<br />au.tsid.c of the SwF' overlay ~.istrict, City needs to research whether it ca~a~,l~ and should
<br />tecaic, da so, ~R~ is, far cxample, highly doubtful that City could trU.~np ~'~~ a~~d.
<br />~l~erburne Counfiy's apps°ovais of such ~.on~toring a~tside of the '~'F averiay c~istriet. ~n~,
<br />eve~~ if City could. da so, ~Rr, is qurfie confident that I~Iatt l~edvina, City's e~avlronn~.ental
<br />ca~nsulfiant for the landfill since approx~m.ately 1994, would not opine ~aat such an approach
<br />would be envirantnentally pru.d.ent, lather ~-edvina's reco~nn~en.d.ed ~.pprovals to date of the
<br />exzsting landfill "co.panenfis" outside of the ~wr overlay districfi would suggest that he
<br />"'believes" that these approvals were and are appropriate.
<br />
<br />~. ~F~'.' ~ ~: shoui ursu~ with ~ ~terna~ive
<br />roaches far its ~ Koval of ~hc 13~acre ia~a~l~ ex a~sion
<br />As pant of ~R~., and Tiller's ~Jctaber ~a~~ request to mine within mast of the landfill
<br />buffer area an the southern end of fihe lan~.fill, City sfiaff represented. that it would be
<br />"xnappropria~te afar City] to eonsid.er" this cxp~nsion request, which it described. as a
<br />"ca~~.ponenfi'' of the c~pansian of fihe l~.ndfill, without fihe full landfill expansion onto the 1 ~$.~~
<br />acre ~I~~ p~"ape~`ty~ ~~. 9~, in response, ~.l~.L and Tiller wifihdrew fiheir req~~esfi. And, as City
<br />inst~~.cted, E~.lr, incorporated fihe previously requested "expansion ... on fiha Landfill property""
<br />into its multiPyear environmental revzew of and. its ultimate ~a~~ch ~~, ~~~9 pay=nit ~~equest fa~.~
<br />tl~e ?~,4~~.cre landl~ll expansion ~ that is, a 13,4~aere "expansion . , . an the l~andf~ll property"
<br />wifih a ~~~aere expansion on the 1 Q~.~~acre ~1~.~ praperfiy.
<br />On ~ctaber l~, ~~09, City denied ~Rlf's requested C1~~1~icense an~en~.~.ent application
<br />far ifis ?~,4-acre landfill expa~~sion for the sale reason that fihe ~ ~$.~~ac~~e ~I~.A. property was net
<br />within fihe SwF, E~ has thus argued fia fihe Court in ~~.~ ~I that City arbit~~rily denied. fihe
<br />1 ~.4g~cre pa~~tic~n of ~R.~,'s requested expansion an the existing 13?,4-acre landfill prape~~ty ~
<br />because it is entirely wifilain the w~' and. thereby unaffected by City's sole basis for denial. Ci~r t
<br />responded by reversing ifis ~ctaber 20a~ insisfienGe on o...~ "consider[ing]" ~Rf.,'s lesser ~ .
<br />r
<br />
|