Laserfiche WebLink
03/09/2010 16:18 + BRIGGS tY10RGAN MPLS 1 PRGL 40/60 <br />that allows it to use its current pzoperty as a solid waste facility." City .~.RL II SJ Opp. <br />Tar. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Tlae City even scoffed at the notion that "the Landfill <br />1xuiv believes that the scope of its cua7•ent CUP pxevents it fxoxn using as part of a <br />lenditlling facility part of its pxopezty zn t3ae area witliill the cvrrezat SWF Distz~ict," and it <br />suggests that the ERL ".resolve that uncertainty as pare of ... the [parties'] process of <br />discussizl.g conditaans for renewal oFthe Y,axzdfiIl's current CUP and License." Id But, <br />tivhexa. the ERI.SUbnriitted just such a reclu©st as part of the renews] pxoeess, the City <br />determined that a separate C"f7P/Z,iceztse an~endzx~etzt application was recluixed. <br />Before tkze Court;, the City nevertheless attempted to justify its denial of tYle l/~L's <br />xequested CUP and Liceztse awendmez-ts ss it relates to tlxe approximately 13-acre <br />expansion. Tlae City maazataxns that thexe were four procedural haze to its approval of this <br />approximately 13-acxe port7ou of the l IZL's iztxtxal 73.4-sore 1az~d~xll expansion xequest --- <br />xzatxxely, (1) the E1tJ., had to separately apply fox the approximately 13-acre expansaoza, (2) <br />the City could not legally approve ot; atzything but t1~e full 73.4-acre ®xpansion request, <br />(3) the City could zaot approve of t'he approximately 13-acre expansion because it was too <br />technically difficult, at~d (4) the City could not approve of the approximately 13-acre <br />expansion because tT.te State-zzaoxzdated 200-foot buffer had to be maintained within the <br />SVtTI{ overlay distaiot. Each of the City's four procedural argu~ottents fails. <br />First, the City's ixzsistence on n separate application for the approxizz~ately 13-floe <br />expansion was belied by its ovvzx prior representatlons..A,s the EIiL l}igltbightecl in its <br />opezzing memoxazzduzn to the Couzt iu,~1ZLIl (ERL II S.T. Br. at 11 n.X), dZe City <br />previously represented that it would l,e "inappropriate [l'or the City] to consider" the <br />Elti,'s zeq~aesi for au expansion on this ftppxo~imately l3 acres without the full expatsion <br />oxzto tlxe 108.8-acre S:Dt~ properly. Fem. 98 at 1. The City nowk~exe denied its prior <br />repzesentations, and it is now bound by it. See_ PeCet'sorz v..b',~Sl ; 711, N.i1V.2d 470, 4S2 <br />(Minn. 2006). <br />Second, the Mazzzxosoha Supreme Court has already rejected the City's srgurxaez~t that it <br />could. zzot approve of CUP and License aznondznents fez a 1essPar port[oza - i.e., the <br />Z:~O)A11>,406\CI~yAppPeb~PP,6 Rcyori„fiAel (7J.dao ~-~ 7 <br />