Laserfiche WebLink
BRIGGS AND M O R G A N <br />City of Elk River Planning Commission <br />April 13, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />Second, City Staff erroneously suggests at page 1 of its report that the SWF overlay <br />district line may not "run[] along a section line and does not extend west to the right of way for <br />the City trail." There is no contrary understanding of where the SWF overlay district line is <br />shown on all seven of the above-cited City maps. <br />Third and finally, City Staff erroneously suggests at page 2 of its report that City has <br />"[t]he alternative" of "commenc[ing] a zoning and enforcement action against the Landfill for <br />deposition [of] solid waste outside of the SWF Overlay District." To the contrary, City, through <br />its January 16, 1996 issuance of the CUP for the Landfill Property (Ex. 45, Tab C), "effectively <br />approved of the SWF overlay district for the entire 137.4-acre property." 9/29/09 ERL <br />Mandamus Petition at ¶ 3; but see 10/I9i09 City Answer ¶ 3 {denial}. <br />With Judge Varco's April 2, 2010 ruling in favor of ERL (Ex. 168), the parties' respective <br />finger-pointing should end and a global solution reached. To that end, City Staffs <br />"recommend[ed] zoning," minus its erroneous suggestions, is a critical first step. ERL looks <br />forward to, using Judge Varco's language, "proceed[ing] with its proposed landfill expansion" <br />(id. at 32) and resuming the good relations with City. <br />Sincerely, <br />Ja k Y. Perry <br />JYP/kg <br />Enclosures <br />cc: R. Haug {via email) <br />L. Johnson (via email) <br />M. Ayers (via email} <br />D. Walters (via email) <br />B. Jeffry (via email) <br />