CC_Minutes_2010_1011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Honorable Mayor Craig Klausing City Council Members October 11, 2010 Page 2 with the Comprehensive Plan and staff recommended approval. Subsequently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency commenced an environmental review proceeding which is currently underway. Both the development of the proposed facility and its operation are subject to this review for which a determination on the need for an environmental impact statement will be made on November 16, 2010. In connection with the environmental review, the Company has prepared an air emissions permit application which has resulted in the MPCA issuing a notice of intent to approve the permit for air emissions. On Wednesday, October 6, the Roseville Planning Commission held a public hearing on changes to the industrial district including eliminating asphalt plants as an authorized use. The staff report characterized this item as a direct response to the fact that "an asphalt plant is proposed to be located within the City of Roseville on property zoned general industrial district" and intending that the amendment "not allow a potentially undesirable use to start...." The matter was billed as a public hearing, however the Company was not notified that the matter would be considered notwithstanding it is directly intended to affect the Company's request currently pending before the City. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will be considering environmental review of the project and considering significant environmental issues raised by project commentors at its November 16 meeting. This will allow creation of a significant body of information that will directly bear on the issues affected by the proposed ordinance. This will also directly bear on the Company's proposed project. Legal Standard The Minnesota 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 County Board of Commissioners, 617 NW 2d 566 (Minn. 2000), the Minnesota Supreme Court's analysis is an important precedent. In this case, the Court confirmed that although generally changes in regulatory requirements will be applicable if a project has not been approved and the project proponents' property right vested, there is a significant exception to this general rule. In this case, the Court carved out an exception for circumstances where an applicant will suffer a manifest injustice as a result of a zoning authority circumventing the regulatory process by a legislative change. In the Interstate Power case, Nobles County attempted to impose an unmeetable setback requirement as a means to prevent approval of a proposed project. The Court also recognized that the legal principles of promissory estoppel may also be applied to protect an applicant from change in standards during consideration of its application. At the encouragement of the City, the Company has spent thousands of dollars evaluating potential environmental concerns in the environmental review process all in furtherance of its permit request and in order to demonstrate compliance with City standards. Under estoppel principles, the City is prevented from now changing the standards to apply.