Laserfiche WebLink
03/09/2010 16:18 -F L'RIGGS MORGAN MPLS 1 PAGE 49160 <br />the C1ty's curretlt intexpxetatxon of ita City Code. Such constructioxt as to be avoided, See <br />Chergoslcy v. Crosstown 73e11, Titc., 4b3 N.VV.2d 522, 526 (Miz>z><, 1990) (courts "wit11 <br />attezz~pt to avoid ate i7nterpretatioxt o£ the oon,U'act that would gender a provision <br />rrieaniA;gless") 2 <br />S. MULE ®F C(~l~TSTItIJCTIO~I N®. S:.~lmbiguit~ies mxe to be <br />coustis•ued so as to A•erid omisalo~ps s9 inttcutiorxol <br />W1aere a zoning body demonsttates its ability to include cettai7~ pxovi.sions, its faliluxe to <br />include other 1Rlce provisioaia elsewhere is to be deer>;t.ed intentional- See yY'eestratad v. <br />„F'armin~to~a .Z'w~.,1V'o, C3-94354, 1994 WL 396364, at ~2 (1vlixaxu- .A~.pp..Aug. 2, 199x) <br />(:Ex. I50) (ozxlissior~ of cez~taila criteria iroaxz township ordixaartce prrsttmed iz~te><1t%onal) <br />(oitizl~ ,Northland Couni~y Club v. Cornnt'r of Taxation, 3081VIinn. 265, 270-71, 241 <br />N.W.2d 806, 609 (1976)). <br />I3orE, the City detnonstreted its ability not otaly to adopt "setbacl~s" vvitkiizli tlae SWF <br />ovezltty dista~.ct (~ 30-1,$3~4(c)) b~tzt also to iz~:corporate by refeze><ace particular State a-ules <br />(§ 58172(5)-{9)), But the City d.id not odopt the State-mandated 200-foot bui';fer as a <br />rerluired "setback," let alorZe a setbacl~ witlziz>, tkte SWF overlay tiistt•iet, T11is omission is <br />t0 be COA18t111~d as illtentJOxltll, <br />~ City further typified ita dis{ta$en+wusness on ~cbruaxy 3 by insisting that ~~i, subfaiit u !.'v]i-blown Cllr apd L-ice~nse <br />amondmcnt application for the i~-d-acre ~pansioq. i3x. iSl. Dospite City's prior represcintations to this Gourt and <br />the lack of any vtlt,cr good-fa{Ih busts f'or its conduct, EZtL advteed City on ~eUruairy 5 teat it woitid do so. Fem. IS2. <br />T:107A311dOG1Cj~ynpppcbUF~t3licport anW (2).doo ,3-26 <br />