Laserfiche WebLink
1. Per § 30-1834(c), the required "setback" within the SWF <br />overlay district is the same as the "setback" within Ch. 58, Art. <br />III, Div. 4 for the "sanitary landfill" at issue <br />For purposes of the SWF overlay district, § 30-1834(c) provides that "setback .. . <br />applicable in the underlying zoning district shall be applicable, subject to any additional <br />[(1)] regtirements, [(2)] regulations, and [(3)] standards which must be met pursuant to <br />this Code for the establishment and operation of solid waste facilities." Ex. I S (emphasis <br />and bracketed information added). Accordingly, the "setback" requirements, if any, <br />within the SWF overlay district fora "sanitary landfill" are as required by the City Code <br />Ch. 58, Art. IIL, Div. 4. <br />2. City Code Ch. 58, Art. III, Div. 4 contains no "setback" <br />requirement fora "sanitary landfill" <br />Chapter 58; Art. III, Div. 4 provides all of the City Code's "[p]rohibited area" (id. § ~ 8- <br />171), "[l]icense" (id. § 58-172), "[m]inimum requirements" (id. ~ 58-173), and <br />"[p]erformance standards" (id. § 58-174) for "sanitary landfills." Ex. 146. None ofthcse <br />four sections even arguably includes either a "setback" requirement or a requirement that <br />such "setback" be located within the SWF overlay district. <br />c. The several applicable rules of construction confirm ERI,'s position <br />Each of the applicable rules of construction reinforces that the City Code does not require <br />the State-mandated 200-foot buffer to be within the SV~F overlay district. <br />1. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION NO. 1: Plain language controls <br />When interpreting an ordinance, this Court must first determine whether the ordinance <br />language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous. See Gomon v. Northland Family physicians, <br />Ltd., 645 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Minn. 2002). If the ordinance is clear on its face, then this <br />T:\07421140(\Ciq~AppFeb\FEB Reporl_finid (2).doc '} -22 <br />