|
03/by/ZFJ1f~ 1b: "l ti + tSKl(aC~S fV1UK(aAN MIJLS 1 f HCUt b:~/bb
<br />D R I C, G S nivn M O R G~ N
<br />Czty of Elk River 1'la,ming Cozymission
<br />March 9> 2010
<br />Page 2
<br />the district court, the Honorable Robert E. Varco presidi~~g, to summazily approve of Lire 13-acre
<br />l~oztion of its rerluested landfill e~p~ulsion which is uxzdisputedly already wlthi~ the SWF overlay
<br />district.
<br />At the Januaa~y 29, 2010 summary judgzxzezxt hearing before Judge Vaxco, City argued chat
<br />ERL could not expand within the buffer area azad extend the StateAmandated 200-foot buffer into
<br />'killer's propezty because tk~e City Cod© supposedly .required tkzat the buffer be entirely witktin the
<br />SWk' overlay district. In z-espaz~se, Judge Vaz•co ordered tl~e parties t:o brief the very discrete
<br />issue of whether there is such a buffer requirement in the City Cade. City ai1d EI~I, fled their
<br />responsive Uricfs on FebKUauy 2., 2010 aad February ~4, 2010, respeciavely. Judge Varco's
<br />statutory deadline to ruse oz~ Lhe issue is thus May 5, 2010 (ox .A.pxil S, 2010 if lae zt~les on ER,L's
<br />requested CUP/L,icense a-nendment application eoratexr~poxaneously witl7t 7/Ri.,'s rezoning
<br />application).
<br />City also argued at tlxe January 29, 2010 hearing that EI~L's proposed lesser includEd l3-
<br />aexe landfill e~,pazzsion was not pzopexly part of ERL's March 30, 2009 CUP/Liceizse ~unezldment
<br />application because ERL needed to zxaake a separate application for just the 13 acres. Even
<br />ttaough this same argument has been previously rejected, by tl~e 1Vlix~.aesota Suprezxae Court izz
<br />.8j•eza v. City of ,~k(innetrista, 725 N, W.2d 106, 114 (lvl'i~oua. 2006), ERL took n.o chance on a
<br />procedural bar to its z'equest. Without wi~tktd.rawing the 13-acre portion ofi its March 30, 2009
<br />CLIP/,Lzeex~se amondtuez~t application, ERL subzxz~itted on liebzvaiy 22, 2010 a selarate
<br />CUP/License aznendznent application for just its 13-acre expansion. Ex. IS3.
<br />On Ivlarc}a 2, 2010, City staff determiiaed tktat ERI,'s latest applicationz vvas "complete."
<br />Ex. l $9~. Also on March 2, City staff' sezat ERL notice of City`s intent to amend its "CI'I'~
<br />CO,DR TO RT;.A.i?'F~ 'I'I-IAT REQUIRED SUFF~X$ A.~?.IEAS AND BUFF'FR ZUNIS
<br />FOR SOZ,ILI WASTE ]C'.A,CIIGI:TIES 11~US~ l3~ LOCA,'I'1~A WITHTN x.~XJC SOLID
<br />W.A.5q'L FACII,T'il'Z1GS OVERLAP ZONING DTS'I'RIC'T," I;,t. 155, draft Ord. No, IO (bold
<br />and csps u1 original), City's statutory deadline to act oz~ ERL's February 27., 2010 CI.J~/I/ieense
<br />atxzendzxtent applications is ,A.pril 23, 2010
<br />A,NALY$~S
<br />.A- CON7L'R,r+,,ViC1+iTION Off' CI~'X'S PRIOR ,~I~tGUNIFN'x'S
<br />City staffs proposed City Code atnerzdauents, if adapted by the City Council, foreclose at
<br />least three o£ C.ity's prior arguments to Judge Varco.
<br />First, it'tl~c atnezxdm,ez~tts are adopted by the City Council, then City will no longer be able
<br />co z'~aaitxtain, as xt did earlier, that EILI,'s requested l3~acre expaxzsion within the existing 137,4-
<br />acre laiad~zll property could and should instead be pursued through either (l) I;I2.I,'s annual
<br />
|