5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

design presumes that the southern slope of the landfill and buffer area would be located on the southern end of the SDA, and that southern end of the property the Landfill currently owns would be used for additional cells of waste deposited to a much greater height. (See, e.g., Record at 432, 435, 482.) Because denial of the expansion to the SDA, at a minimum, forces the Landfill's engineers back to the drawing board to develop a plan for landfilling on the landfill's current property that does not include a high wall of waste ending abruptly at the existing property line, that portion of the Landfill's motion that argues in the alternative for an order compelling the City to grant a CUP for 18.2 percent of the proposed expansion is a disaster waiting to happen. As noted above, the Landfill already has a CUP that allows it to use its current property as a solid waste facility. (Baker Aff. Ex. L, Supplemental Record at 1476.) The City and the Landfill are already in the process of discussing conditions for renewal of the Landfill's current CUP and License. If the Landfill truly believes that the scope of its current CUP prevents it from using as part of a landfilling facility part of its property in the area within the current SWF District, then it can resolve that uncertainty as part of that process. However, it cannot seek that outcome in the first instance from this Court, as part of an appeal from a denial of an application for a much more grandiose expansion plan. (City CUP Response Brief at 10-11) (emphasis added). C. E1tL's letter: ERL's March 9 letter argues on page 3 that, "notwithstanding its efforts to describe its proposed City Code amendments as a mere `reaffirm[ation]' of its existing City Code requirements, these proposed amendments, if adopted, will instead underscore the obvious -namely, that there is no requirement in the existing City Code either (1) for a 200-foot setback for landfills or (2) that the State-mandated 200-foot setback be within City's SWF overlay district." On this point, it states that "consistent with its February 2, 2010 brief to Judge Varco, City staff's letter identifies no existing City Code setback requirement for landfills." (emphasis added). The City's filings: In its February 2, 2010 brief, the City argued: A. So long as the City's CUP continues to include a buffer area requirement, the City's ordinance requires that buffer area to be maintained within the SWF district. Pursuant to City Code § 30-1834 (a) ("SWF solid waste facility overlay district"), "Solid waste facilities shall not be permitted nor conditional uses in any other zoning district." (Record at 286). Thus, if a buffer is required as a condition of the CUP or license, and that buffer is part of a solid waste facility, § 30-1834 (a) (and other provisions) require that it must be located within the boundaries of a S WF solid waste facility overlay district.