5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

See, e.g., Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Svee, 226 N.W.2d 306, 309 (Minn. 1975) (reversing CUP denial because "mOSt lnlportantly, there was no attempt made, either by the opponents or the council, to suggest or to impose conditions which would insure proper landscaping, setbacks, or ingress and egress"); Ver.'d USA, hoc. v. Sherburne County, No. A08-0581, 2009 WL 605722, at *4 (Minn. App.) (Ex. 41) ("because the county could have approved the CUP with conditions, we find the denial unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious"), review denied (Minn. May 27, 2009); '1'risko, 566 N.W.2d at 357 ("the city's failure to propose additional measures to control dust and vibration or to identify its specific concerns over these potential problems supports a conclusion that the city acted arbitrarily"); Scott County Lumber Co. v. Cit)~ of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn. App.) (reversing the city council's decision for legally insufficient reasons where city planner recommended granting the permit with 20 conditions dealing with dust, noise, and traffic, and appellant agreed to take all action necessary to meet the conditions}, review denied (Minn. Mar. 23, 1988). The City did not respond to this undisputed case law, nor did it make any effort to distinguish it. The City has thus waived any opposition and is now bound by it. See Peter°son, 711 N.W.2d at 482. Third, there is no substantive merit to the City's pretense that it is for some unspecifcd reason more difficult to design the landfill expansion to the southern-most boundary of the existing 137.4-acre landfill property. Contrary to the City's blatant scare tactic, them would be no "high wall of waste ending abruptly at the existing property line" and there is no "disaster waiting to happen." City ~RL II S.J. Opp. Br. at I l . And, in nearly 40 years ofhighly-regulated landfill operations, the City's feigned design concerns have never posed an issue, let alone a threat of a "disaster waiting to happen"! This is because the basic design of the landfill does not change based on the end point. Rather the toe of the landfill would simply move southward, with the height and slope of the landfill staying the same. To further assuage any fear, Sherburne County and MPCA also have to approve of the design of the landfill expansion. T'.\U74?\140(\Ciq~Appl'eb\FEB Repai~_fmal (2).doc ~- 1 (1