Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />were <br /> <br /> <br />IS <br /> <br />sonous. <br /> <br /> <br />a <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />,,,72 <br /> <br /> <br />not elaborate on <br /> <br />nature <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />asked about the radioactivity threat, Jackson stated <br /> <br />she had no <br /> <br />tence in that area.73 In fact, <br /> <br />pointed out that an entirely different state agency <br /> <br />regulates radioactive emissions.74 To this day, Applicant has not asked a public <br /> <br />health expert to examine its proposal. <br /> <br />Appellant makes much of the requirement of a factual basis for land use de- <br /> <br />cisions, and the city's supposed lack of such a basis. 75 In the first place, there are <br /> <br />many positive, demonstrable, and sufficient facts underlying the City's decision, <br /> <br />such as the short smokestack and the emergence of the new cancer treatment, <br /> <br />brachytherapy. There is, however, no denying that a strong reason for the rejec- <br /> <br />tion is the glaring absence of positive factual data supporting the application. But <br /> <br />to vie\v this as a deficiency in <br />" <br /> <br />City's case <br /> <br /> <br />a <br /> <br /> <br />the nature of facts. As anyone who has tried to sit down on a chair that has been <br /> <br />71 R-46. <br />"': R-39. <br />" R-35-36. <br />~4 1 . <br />a. <br />-5 Appellant's Brief 8, 15: See Trisko v. Ci(V of Waile Park, 566 N.W.2d at 352. <br /> <br />l8 <br />