pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� The Honorable Mayor Craig Klausing City Council Members October I1, 2010 Paae 2 � with ihe Comprehensive Plan and staff recommended approval. Subsequently, the Minnesota Pollution Contro] Agency commenced an environmental review proceeding which is currently undenvay. Both the devefopment of [he proposed facility and its operation are subject to this review for which a determination on the need for an environmental impact statement witl be made on November 16, 2010. In connection with [he environrrtentat review, the Company has prepared an air emissions permit application which has resulted i�i thc MPCA issuing a notice of inten[ to approve the permit for air emissions. On Wedncsday, October 6, thc Roscville Planning Commission held a public hearing on changes to the industrial district including eliminating asphalt planLs as an authorized use. The siaff report chazacterized this item as a direct response to the fact that "an asphalt piant is proposed ro be locatcd within the City of Roseville on property 2oned general indusuial distric[" and intcnding that the amendment "not allow a potentially undesirable usc to start...." The matter was billed as a public hearing, however the Company was not notified thai the matter would be considered notwithstanding it is direc[ly intended to affect the Compan}�'s request currently pending hefore the City. The Minnesota Pollution Contro] Agency will be considering environmental review of the project and considering significant em�ironmental issucs raised by project commentors at its November 16 meeting. This will allow creation of a significa�it body of information that will directly bear on the issues affccted by the proposed ordinance. This will also directly bear on the Company's proposed project. Leea1 Standazd The �Iinnesota Supreme Court has considered the circumstances of a change in regulatory framework during the pendency of a request for approval of a project. Where, as here, a legislative act is aimed primarily at a single project, it received more significant scrutiny. In the case of Interstate Power Co. v Nobles Counry Board o�Commissioners, 617 NW 2d 566 (Minn. 2000), the Minnesota Supreme Court's analysis is an important precedent. In this case, the Court confirmed that al[hough generally changes in regulatory requirements will be applicable if a projcct has not been approved and the project proponents' property right vested, there is a significant exception to this general rule. In [his case, the Court carved out an exception for circumstances where an applicant will suffer a mani£est injustice as a result of a zoning authority circumventing the regulatory process by a legislative change. In the h�terstate Power case, Nobles County attempted to impose an umneetable setback requirement as a means to prevcnt approval of a proposed project. The Court also recognized that the legal principles of promissory esroppel may also be applied to protect an applicant from change in standards durir.g consideration of its application. At the encouragement of the City, the Company has spent thousands of dotlars evaluating potential environmental concems in the environmental review process all in furtherance of its pem�it request and in order to demonstra[e compliance with City standards. llnder estoppe] principles, the City is prevented from now changing tl�e standards tu apply. � `/