Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />m <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />to <br /> <br /> <br />1S <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />harm <br /> <br /> <br />been <br /> <br /> <br />a <br /> <br />more cautIous <br /> <br /> <br />had <br /> <br /> <br />asbestos, DDT, Phen-phen, and <br /> <br />many other substances. \Vhen asbestos was being stuffed into the walls of build- <br /> <br />ings in this countrY. it was thought of as abatin2: a risk, not creatin2: one. But <br />u ~ -' '-' <,.,..' ,(",..: <br /> <br />placing Applicant's incinerator in a residential neighborhood abates no risk, and <br /> <br />the potential for harm has been identified in advance. <br /> <br />There is no reason why this incinerator, with proper precautions, should not <br /> <br />be located in an industrial zone. That is what industrial zones are for. As the <br /> <br />United States Supreme Court pointed out in the foundational case Euclid v. .1111- <br /> <br />bier Co., municipal zoning arose as a method for keeping residential areas separate <br /> <br />from troubling uses such as this. so Protection of residential areas was the primary <br /> <br />rationale for <br /> <br /> <br />s upholding a <br /> <br />s <br /> <br />to zone in <br /> <br /> <br />instance. <br /> <br />The typical attitude of zoning is apparent in the neighborhood at issue <br /> <br />here, where it is currently il1egallO burn an.vthing, including leaves. 82 Applicant <br /> <br />is not being denied the use of its property-only a new, expanded use completely <br /> <br />so E I'd j. ' I C 7~7 LT ~ 3 '" - ., 86 ~9 - (19'16\ <br />ued v. /1l710 er 0., _I_.~. 0). j -~). .:.. ). <br />I y 1 <br />U. <br />S2 Roseville City Ordinance 404.02. <br /> <br />21 <br />