Laserfiche WebLink
that allows it to use its current property as a solid waste facility." City ERL II SJ Opp. <br />Br. at 11-12 (emphasis added). The City even scoffed at the notion that "the Landfill <br />truly believes that the scope of its current CUP prevents it from using as part of a <br />landfilling facility part of its property in the area within the current SWF District," and it <br />suggests that the ERL "resolve that uncertainty as part of ...the [parties'] process of <br />discussing conditions for renewal of the Landfill's current CUP and License." Id. I3ut, <br />when the ERL submitted just such a request as part of the renewal process, the City <br />determined that a separate CUP/License amendment application was required. <br />Before the Court, the City nevertheless attempted to justify its denial of the ERL's <br />requested CUP and License amendments as it relates to the approximately 13-acre <br />expansion. The City maintains that there were fow• procedural bars to its approval of this <br />approximately 13-acre portion of the ERL's initial 73.4-acre landf Il expansion request ---- <br />namely, (1) the ERL had to separately apply for the approximately 13-acre expansion, (2) <br />the City could not legally approve of anything but the full 73.4-acre expansion request, <br />(3) the City could not approve of the approximately 13-acre expansion because it was too <br />technically difficult, and (4) the City could not approve of the approximately 13-acre <br />expansion because the State-mandated 200-foot buffer had to be maintained within the <br />SWF overlay district. Each of the City's four procedural arguments fails. <br />First, the City's insistence on a separate application for the approximately 13-acre <br />expansion was belied by its own prior representations. As the ERL highlighted in its <br />opening memorandum to the Court in ERLII (F.RL II S.J. Br. at 11 n.l), the City <br />previously represented that it would be "inappropriate (for the City] to consider" the <br />ERL's request for an expansion on this approximately 13 acres without the full expansion <br />onto the 108.8-acre SDA property. Ex. 98 at 1. The City nowhere denied its prior <br />representations, and it is now bound by it. See Peter^son v. B~1SI*, 711 N.W.2d 470, 482 <br />(Minn. 2006). <br />Second, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already rejected the City's argument that it <br />could not approve of CUP and License amendments for a lesser portion - i.e., the <br />T:\0742\140C,\CityAppFeb\FGB Repon_final (2).doc 3-17 <br />