5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

obligation is (1) unenforceable as a mere "recital" (id. at 19-20), (2) invalid as a restriction on prospective zoning authority which was not in clear and unmistakable language (id. at 20 n.14), and (3) otherwise inapplicable to any landfill expansion outside of the existing 137.4-acre landfill property - i.e., within the SDA (id. at 20 n.15). And, explicitly, the district court's declaratory judgment ruling relied, as follows, on City's failure to comply with its "cooperat[ion]" obligation: Finally, the record is clear that several years before the application, [City] was aware of [ERL's] intent to expand the landfill. The landfill's borders also show that within the city of Elk River, it can only expand south. It thus should have been no surprise to [City] when [ERL] began the process to expand into the SDA. Yet despite this knowledge and despite [City'sl consideration in the HCA to cooperate with [ERL'sl legal efforts to expand, the City Council expressed concerns about the location of the proposed expansion and the negative image the landfill supposedly projects upon the city. Furthermore, even with the several years' notice that the landfill will soon reach capacity, it appears that (City] has not made any effort to develop an alternative plan for waste. All of these facts weigh against the rationality of the city's decision. Id. at 31 (emphasis added). Moreover, as discussed on page 3-4 of ERL's initial motion to dismiss, this Court ruled just last year that the local zoning body, let alone the reviewing court, needs to "consider" its contractual obligations to the applicant when determining whether to approve of the zoning request. Veit USA, Inc. v. Sherburne County, No. A08-0581, 2009 WL 605722, at *6 (Minn. App.), review denied (Minn. May 27, 2009} (Attach. 1). Indeed this Court reversed and remanded as "arbitrary" the zoning denial because the 14