Laserfiche WebLink
the City's current interpretation of its City Code. Such construction is to be avoided. See <br />Chef°gosky v. C~°osstown Bell, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Minn. 1990) (courts "will <br />attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision <br />meaningless"). <br />5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION NO. S: Ambiguities are to be <br />construed so as to read omissions as intentional <br />Where a zoning body demonstrates its ability to include certain provisions, its failure to <br />include other like provisions elsewhere is to be deemed intentional. See Weestrand v. <br />Fca°rningto» 1ia~p., No. C8-94-354, 1994 WL 396364, at ~`2 (Minn. App. Aug. 2, 1994) <br />(EY. 150) (omission of certain criteria from township ordinance presumed intentional) <br />(citing Northland CountT~~ Club v. Comm'r of'Taxatr.'on, 308 Minn. 265, 270-71, 241 <br />N.W.2d 806, 809 (1976)). <br />Here, the City demonstrated its ability not only to adopt "setbacks" within the SWF <br />overlay district (§ 30-1834(c)) but also to incorporate by reference particular State rules <br />(§ ~ 8-172(5)-(9)). But the City did not adopt the State-mandated 200-foot buffer as a <br />reduired "setback," let alone a setback within the SWF overlay district. This omission is <br />to be construed as intentional. <br />~ City further typif ed its disingenuousness on FebiTaary 3 by insisting that ERL submit a filll-blown CUl' and License <br />amendment application for the 13.4-acre expansion. Ex. 1 ~ 1. Despite City's prior representations to this Court a(id <br />the lack of any other good-faith basis for its conduct, ERL advised City on Pebrualy 5 that it would do so. Ex. 152. <br />T:10742\140(\CilyAppFe6\FED Repon_fi nal (2).doc 3-26 <br />