6.6. SR 03-15-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Court further notes that the language in the CA does not su ort the Ap Landillds argun~entthat the panics contractually `anticipated' that the Landfill would expand beyond its property boundary as of Zoo3. The parties do not dispute that, when they entered into the A, the Landfill had not et y expanded to utilize all of the land on its existing site for which it had the requisite permits and licenses, Furthermore, the contract`s langua a clean y refers to "expansions and new uses on the Landfill property," PetJ~om 1. Ex, ~ p Z~, Seet~on ~,ob emphasis added}.} The parties do not dispute that the Landfill does not own the property onto which it wishes to expand, Finall ,and erha s most Y p p importantly, the parties executed the HCA before the Cit created its latest . Y Comprehensive Plan ~n 200, Since the Comprehensive Plan came into effect in 2004, any entity that wishes to operate a landfill on land that the Cit Council has not ` ~, Y already guided as Landf 11 in the 2004 Comprehensive Pian must a I for a .. pp Y reguid~ng and rezonzng, City's Proposed order at pp, 2627} emphasis added}, L. FL's letter: The Landfill's March 9 letter also attaches its amendment a licatian where pp ERL argues on page 3-17 that "the City previously represented that it would be `ina ro riate for . pP p ~ the City to consider the ERL s request for an expansion an this a roximatel 13 aces witho t pp y u the full expansion onto the 108, 8Mac~e SDA property," emphasis added , The pity's representation: As ERL confirmed when making a similar ar ument in its briefs g , its assertion refers to a paragraph in an nctober 22, 2002, staff re ort to the Plannin Commis ' p g soon, authored by Stephen Rohlf, who was then the City Building and Zonin Administrator. That st f g of report addressed an appl~cat~on by Tiller to change the min~ng setback on the Landfill's ro ert from 200 feet to 50 p p y feet, in the paragraph that the Landfill purports to describe, Cit staff wrote; Y Staff believes that it is inappropriate to consider the current re uest in context with q a future expansion at Landfill prior to the actual request bein made, Minin is g g only one component of an expansion, whzch should be reviewed at the same time as the other details, Although this discrepancy does not arise from any representation made b us as the Cit 's o ' y y uts~de counsel in the pending matters, we include it because at the Januar 29, 2010 hearin before Jud e y g g Marco, we had shown Mr, Perry and the Court blown up versions of 1 the actual uote in the 20 ~ } q 02 memorandum and ~2}the description of that sentence that appeared in one of the Landfill's briefs, That occurred several weeks before the Landfill's Februar 2010 CUP amendment a li ' . Y pp canon repeated the mxscharacter~zat~on,