5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 R i G G 5 ANa M O R G A N City of Elk River Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Page 4 district court agreed ~~=ith the City in its Order and Order for Judgment that "an expansion of the landfill requi~•es a rezoning of the SDA to a solid ~~=aste facility overlay district," and that "the [comprehensive guide] Plan must be amended before [City] can decide ~~-hether to grant the rezoning. (Order and Order for Judgment at 25 (emphasis added).) Thus, be decreeing that [ERL] "is entitled to proceed with its proposed expansion," after recognizing that "the expansion of the landfill requires" a rezoning crJ2d that the guide plan must be amended before a rezoning decision, the district court's declaratory judgment has the same effect. as an injunction. Either [(] )] it requires the City to make the expansion la~s=ful by re~uidit~ the SDA and then rezoning it, or [(2)] it prohibits the City from enforcine the existing Guide Plan and Zoning ordinance against fERL'sl expansion. Because [ERL's] opening brief never mentions what the district court decreed, even when arguing that it is "nat a ruling of serious, perhaps irreparable consequence," [ERL] has provided no alternative interpretation of the declaratory judgment that does not, directly or indirectly, either [{ l )] compel t11e City to l~islatively amend its Guide Plan or7.,oning ordinance or [(2)] prohibit the City from enforcing its Guide Plan or Zoning ordinance against the proposed expansion. 4/28/10 Appeal City Opp. to Dis. Br. at 6-7 (bracketed infoi7nation and emphasis added; italics in original). In seeking a stay of the enforcement of the District Court's 4;2/10 Order as City understood its meaning (i. e., as a mandatory injunction), City's counsel repeated on May 3, 2010 this same representation to the District Court. 5/3/10 I'RL 1 City Stay Br. at 3-4. City's counsel's May 3, 2010 representation teas as follows: [1']he Court's declat•ation that [ERL] "is entitled to proceed ~s=ith its proposed expansion" appears to either [(1)] compel the City to legalize (F..,RL'sl 2009 proposed expansion, or [(2)] prohibits the City from enforcing its laws against that expansion. la'. at 3 {bracketed information and emphasis added). City's counsel added: Thus, by decreeing that [ERL] "is entitled to proceed with its proposed expansion," after recognizing that "the expansion of the landfill requires" a rezoning and that the guide plan must be amended before a rezoning decision, the Court's declaratory judgment either [(1)] requires the City to ~r~ake the expansion la~-ful by re uiding the SDA and then rezonin wit, or [(2)] it prohibits the City