5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ERL from taking any actions in furtherance of or to enforce the 4/2/10 Order.5 The fact that City voluntarily chose not to seek relief under Rules 54.02, 60, 62 or 65 does not justify an unauthorized expansion of appellate jurisdiction over anon-appealable order. Regardless, any procedural issues are of City's own making and not a basis to expand this Court's jurisdiction. City was last asked in 1996 to make the necessary approvals for ERL's landfill expansion which was for 53.1 acres. Attach. 6 (Dist. Ct. file, ERL Ex. 45, Tab C). In 1996, City reviewed and issued the necessary approvals - i.e., {1) SWF Overlay District and (2) landfill CUP - at the same time. Id. City nevertheless elected to separately review ERL's March 30, 2009 joint SWF Overlay District and landfill CUP/license amendment applications. 4/16/10 City Stmt. of Case at 4. City likewise elected not to move the district court to consolidate the two resulting district court challenges to City's separate zoning denials - i. e., ERL I and ERL II. s Even if this appeal is dismissed and the district court fully adjudicates the remaining breach of contract claim or otherwise modifies its 4/2/10 Order to provide for proper appeal, there are sufficient built-in permitting and operational protections to ensure that there would be no landfilling into the adjacent 109-acre SDA before this Court's appeal would be final. 4/21/10 ERL Br. at 12-14. City thus argues instead that "when landfilling is likely to begin ignores the dramatic and disruptive effect on the landscape of steps that must precede the use of the area in dispute in this suit for landfilling. Those steps include cutting down the large mature trees currently serving as a buffer on the southern side of the landfill face, substantial grading and removal of earth to shape the land and install a liner prior to landfilling, and other steps that cannot be undone." 4/28/10 City Opp. Br. at 10 (italics in original). City's parade of horribles is wholly misguided. ERL cannot do anything without aCUP/license amendment, the application for which is pending before the district court. City also ignores the fact that the existing 137.4-acre landfill property and the adjacent 109-acre SDA are both within the Mineral Extraction (ME) Overlay District, with an existing or applied mining CUP on the entire property. The existing landfill property will thus be altered by the permitted mining long before, and regardless of, the landfill expansion project. 12