Laserfiche WebLink
„1 <br />The Honorable Mayor Craig Klausing <br />City Council Members <br />October 11, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />with the recommended ap� <br />Pollutio� � � ��� �tal <br />underw� <br />review <br />made o °� <br />� <br />prepare <br />intent � ` <br />On W <br />chang <br />staff � <br />propc <br />and i <br />matt <br />� ����� <br />C�..����r�. <br />wou <br />curr� Y��.�___� <br />:ilit� <br />�nvi <br />� en <br />ias r <br />� l f..v �'1��--�'� <br />ll �c'�f'` <br />��r �f `/�� <br />C�,” _ _ "J�-�� <br />j v 5 � �f`(,��. � t,�' (� <br />��'K. c � c �.,n�.n,t? :, � <br />( i�� rC4� ; f►• �°--� C2�.+? :Lt_�'. f,l"�; �i-. <br />� <br />Commission held a pu � ic <br />ing asphalt plants as an authorized use. The <br />,nse to the fact that "an asphalt plant is <br />� on property zoned general industrial district" <br />tentially undesirable use to start...." The <br />: Company was not notified that the matter <br />� intended to affect the Company's request <br />The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will be considering environmental review of the <br />project and considering significant environmental issues raised by project commentors at its <br />November 16 meeting. This will allow creation of a significant body of information that will <br />directly bear on the issues affected by the proposed ordinance. This will also directl bear on the <br />Company's proposed project. <br />Le�al Standard <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court has considered the circumst� C t' �' % <br />framework during the pendency of a request for approval of { <br />legislative act is aimed primarily at a single project, it recei` Q%.�',f% �� ` <br />case of Interstate Power Co. v Nobles Counry Board of Con ,:,i�✓''�� <br />2000), the Minnesota Supreme Court's analysis is an impor� <br />confirmed that although generally changes in regulatory req f��:/��; <br />project has not been approved and the project proponents' p � <br />significant exception to this general rule. In this case, the C - _ -- � --- _- <br />circumstances where an applicant will suffer a manifest inj <br />circumventing the regulatory process by a legislative chang <br />Nobles County attempted to impose an unmeetable setback <br />approval of a proposed project. The Court also recognized <br />estoppel may also be applied to protect an applicant from change in standards during <br />consideration of its application. At the encouragement of the City, the Company has spent <br />thousands of dollars evaluating potential environmental concerns in the environmental review <br />process all in furtherance of its permit request and in order to demonstrate compliance with City <br />standards. Under estoppel principles, the City is prevented from now changing the standards to <br />apply. <br />0 <br />