|
03/09/2010 16:18 + Y~Kl(a(~ti fYIUK[UAN f+'11JL5 1 t-'Hlit 4L/bb
<br />See, e,g., Mintaetvrtlut Congregation ofJehovcth's Witnesses v. Svee, 2263d,'W.2d 306,
<br />309 (Minn. 1975) (zeversing CUk' deaual because "zxtost importantly, t~.ere was no
<br />attexnpt made, either by the opponents oa- tlza council, to suggest or to impose conditions
<br />which would i~zsure proper landscaping, setbacl~s, or iaigiess tuzd egress"); Veit: US.A, I~zc.
<br />v. Sherbuvrte County, No, A08-0581, 2009 WL 605722, at *4 (Minu..f'1pp.) (fix. 4'1)
<br />("because the county could have approved the CUP tivith cozzdltions, we fiazd the dextral
<br />unreasozzable, arbitrazy, azzd capricious"), review denied (iV,linn. May 27, 2009); 7'risko,
<br />SGG N.W.2d at 357 ("thE qty's failure to propose additional measures to control dust and
<br />vibration ox to iclantify its specihc concerns ovex these poteaataal pxobleaxts suppoxts a
<br />coxaclusioxx 1:hat the city Acted arbitrarily"); Scott Coutaty.~utnber Co, v. City of Shalcol~ee,
<br />.~17 ~T, W,2d. 721, 727 (lv~izztz. A.pp.) (revel-t3uag the city council's decision for legally
<br />ixxsuf~eient reasons where city plartxzez• recornxnended grantir~ the permit with 20
<br />conditions dealiaag with dust, noise, and traffic, alld appe~].aazt agreed to take all action
<br />xaecessary to ~aaeet the conditions), review denied (Minn. Max. 23, 1.988). The City did
<br />z~ot xespond. to this uzadisputed case law, r~or did it mftlce az~y effoxt to distinguish it. The
<br />City has tizus waived any oppoaitaoaz and is now bound by it, ,See ,Peterson, 711 AT,W.2d
<br />at 4$2.
<br />'flaxz'd, tktea'e is no substaaxti~ve xzzexit to tlac City's pretexzse that it is for some unspeciided
<br />reason more diffcult to deszgu. the landfill expa~zsion to the southern~z~zoat bouxzdazy of
<br />the existing i37.~-acro landfill property, Contrar~r to'the Czn~'s blata~zt scaxe t~uctic, there
<br />would be zta "high vrall of wasl:e eazdiaxg abxuptly at the exiatiaag pxopexty litze" and there
<br />is no "disastex r~~aitang to happen." City .~,~ II S.T. Opp. Ba'. at 11. And, in nearly 40
<br />yeaTp o;f higl~ly~xegtalated lasadfi.ll operations, the City's fexgnecl design concezYis have
<br />zzever posed an issue, ,let alozae a threat of a "disaster waiting to happexz"1 'T'b.~is is because
<br />the basic desig~z of the landfill does xzot chatzge based on the end post. 1ZatlZer the toe of
<br />the lctrtdlill would simply move souTlawnurd, with the hesgltt azad slope o;f the landfill
<br />staying the sazzae. To further assuage any fear, Sherbur~:e Couxaty attd M~'C1~ aaso lzavv to
<br />appxove of the desigaz of the landfill expansiotz,
<br />A:1074?VAD61Ci0'ApyPabiPP,B ~iclgltfip01 GZ).doe 3rd
<br />
|