Z - Memorandum of Objection Brian Webb Attorney Joshua Leonard
Memorandum of Objection
to Application No. H-2018-0042
I. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
If the City approves this application, my clients will file a petition for judicial review in district
court, where the City’s decision to approve the application will be reversed, and the application
will be remanded back to the City to comply with the City’s Development Code by requiring a
CUP. The clarity of the Development Code’s CUP requirement should cause the district court to
order the City to reimburse my clients for the attorneys’ fees they incurred as a result of the City’s
failure to follow its own Development Code.
II. OBJECTIONS.
The neighbors renew their objections to the application, including:
A. Applicant Missed Deadline. The applicant missed the Development Code’s
deadline to submit an application to amend the Development Agreement by more than two years.1
B. C.U.P. Required. The City’s Development Code generally prohibits industrial
uses, like the applicant’s, on residentially-zoned property. The existing Development Agreement
authorized continuation of the non-conforming use, but the City’s Development Code expressly
prohibits expansion of a nonconforming use without obtaining a CUP.2
1 See Meridian’s Unified Development Code (the “UDC”), which reads:
A development agreement modification may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all
parties.
UDC § 11-5B-3.F.3., emphasis added. The UDC contains no other provision regulating the deadline for a development
agreement modification.
2 See UDC § 11-1B-1, which reads:
…nonconforming properties, uses, structures, or signs shall not expand or extend the nonconforming
aspect of the property, use, structure, or sign unless approved subject to a conditional use permit as
set forth in section 11-5B-6 of this title.
Emphasis added. See also UDC § 11-1B-4.A.2., which reads:
A. The nonconforming use may continue as long as the use remains lawful and is not expanded or
extended, subject to the following provisions:
…
2. Extension: A nonconforming use may be extended to occupy additional land area only
through the approval of a conditional use permit in accord with the procedures set forth in
chapter 5, article B, “Specific Provisions”, of this title.
pg. 2
IF THE CITY APPROVES THIS APPLICATION, THE CITY’S FAILURE TO
REQUIRE A C.U.P. PROVIDES AN OBVIOUS BASIS FOR THE DISTRICT COURT
TO REVERSE THE CITY’S DECISION.
C. Policy Violation. Even if the City properly required the applicant to obtain a CUP,
it should be denied because allowing expansion of the applicant’s industrial use directly violates
the City’s policy against encouraging non-conforming uses to continue.3
D. Applicant Failed to Include Mandatory Conditions. The applicant , in its
proposed modifications to the Development Agreement, failed to include over a dozen conditions
that the Development Code requires for recycling and composting operations located near
residential zoning districts. Many of the required conditions were included in the July 17, 2018,
staff report, but the applicant failed to include them in its revisions to the proposed Development
Agreement amendments. The required conditions include:
• sight -screening suffic ient to block the view of the expanded heavy industrial
use, both from Locust Grove Road and from Co lumbia Road;4
• maintain all grounds and facilit ies in an orderly manner, to keep them from
becoming a public nuisance;5
• locate all mechanical equipment and operations, power-driven processing
equipment and operations, shipping and delivery areas, and other outdoor
activity on the subject property at least 300’ from abutting residential districts;6
• surface all driveways into and through the site, and any open area, with a
dustless material (e.g., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or bricks);7
• store no unso rted material outside;8
Emphasis added.
3 See UDC § 11-1B-01, which contains the City’s adopted policy on the treatment of non-conforming uses. It reads (in
pertinent part):
… allow any nonconforming property, use, or structure… to continue until they are removed, but not to
encourage their continuation.
Emphasis added.
4 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 3, Subsection 32.A.
5 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 32.B.
6 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 32.C.
7 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 32.D.
8 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 32.E.
pg. 3
• prior to the City executing a modified Development Agreement, identify how
the proposed heavy industrial use will address the impacts of no ise and other
emissions on adjacent residential districts;9
• obtain a written statement from all federal, state, and locate entities with
jurisdiction, including (but not limited to) the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Central District Health
Department, the Ada County Air Quality Board, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources, stat ing
that the subject property, the proposed heavy industrial use, and the site,
facilities, structures, and equipment involved in the proposed heavy industrial
use all meet every applicable standard governing such use, site, facility,
structure, and equipment;10 and
• mitigate all of the follosing adverse effects of the proposed heavy industrial use
through setbacks, bu ffers, sound attenuation, and hours of operation:11
- noise,12
- odors,13
- vibrations,14
- blowing debris and other material,15 and
- any other emission or radiation that endangers human health, results in
damages to vegetation or property, or exceeds health and safety standards.16
The City largely has ignored these required conditions, despite the lack of authority in LLUPA or
the Development Code to allow the applicant to avoid them.
9 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 25.B.
10 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 32.D. (Note: These letters were required to have been included
with the Application, pursuant to this code section, but they were not. The omission of these letters, by itself, is grounds to
deny the Application. If the City approves the incomplete application, the City’s action would constitute reversible error on
appeal.)
11 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 25.B.
12 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 25.B.1. The excessive noise caused by the Applicant’s current
operation under its existing nonconforming use is extremely detrimental to the neighbors’ peaceful enjoyment of their
respective properties . The noise emanating from the Property only will get worse if the City violates its policy and the
requirements of the Development Code by approving the Development Agreement modifications requested by the Applicant.
13 See Id.
14 See Id. Vibrations are another key concern of neighbors of the Property, whose homes vibrate and pictures on walls rattle,
all from the Applicant’s current operation under its existing nonconforming use. As with the sound emanating from the
Property, the vibrations only will get worse if the City violates its policy and the requirements of the Development Code by
approving the Development Agreement modifications requested by the Applicant.
15 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 32.C.
16 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 3, Subsection 25.B.3.
pg. 4
E. Applicant Currently in Violation. Based on the testimony of neighbors of the
subject property, the applicant’s current use of its property is in violation of the conditions
contained in the existing Development Agreement.
F. Threat to Health and Safety. As testified by the homeowners and residents who
live nearby the applicant’s property, the applicant’s operation already poses a threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare. If the applicant is allowed to expand and extend its operation, the public
harm only will increase.
G. Improper Notice. Several of the public meetings and public hearings required for
the 2016 Development Agreement and for the application to expand and extend the applicant’s
non-conforming use were improperly noticed or not noticed at all, resulting in violations of my
clients’ due process rights.
H. Fiscal Responsibility. As elected officials, one of your primary duties is to
prudently manage the City’s finances. If you approve the application and allow the applicant’s
heavy industrial use to expand, you will be mismanaging public money in several ways:
• First , as stated in the o riginal staff report, “Staff is concerned that if the
proposed industrial use is allowed to expand under a DA amendment, that it
would become a liability to the City.” The staff report then mentioned the City’s
approval of a gravel mine a few years ago in a residential district, and discussed
the needless expenditure of City resources to handle the flood of neighbors’
complaints.17
• Second, if the City approves this application, that decision will be expensive.
When the district court hears that the City’s approval contradict ed clear code
requirements, I expect the district court to reimburse my clients’ attorneys’ fees.
Under Idaho Code § 12-117, a court doesn’t just have authority to award costs
and attorneys’ fees to my clients, a court is required to (“shall”) award costs
and attorneys’ fees to my clients on judicial review, if the court determines that
the City “acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law.”
• Third, if the City approves the application, the City will see a decrease in its
property tax revenues as the value of properties all around the applicant’s
unnatural disaster decreases. And property tax revenues will decrease while the
City’s costs to absorb the problems that come with a heavy industrial use
locating in a residential area increase.
• Fourth, unpredictable land use decisions negatively affect private investment
in the City. Private business interests dislike unpredictability almost more than
17 The “significant impact on City resources” caused by the City’s approval of the gravel operation resulted in an amendment
to the City’s Unified Development Code. Heavy industrial uses (like in the application currently before the Council) now
are prohibited in residential districts. (See July 17, 2017, p. 4, in the “Staff Concerns” section.)
pg. 5
they dislike economic downturns. (At least down economies rebound, right?)
Businesses want to know that they can rely on consistency - they don’t want to
put an office building in a commercial district, only to have the City approve a
development agreement that allows a heavy industrial composting operation
right next door. (“But I thought it was zoned commercial?!?!?!”) If the City
approves this application, the City is inconsistently applying its development
code. That might seem insignificant, but it isn’t - private investors notice.
III. AGRICULTURAL VS. INDUSTRIAL USE.
At the public hearing held on July 17, 2018, someone mentioned the Idaho Right to Farm Act. The
Idaho Right to Farm Act does not apply to this application for several reasons:
• First, for anyone who has visited the site and seen the towering piles of construction
trash, heard the constant rumble of heavy machinery punctuated with a staccato “beep,
beep, beep” when put in reverse, and felt the bone-shaking vibrations caused by the
applicant’s operation, the “agricultural or industrial” debate at the last public hearing
over whether the applicant’s operation is “agricultural” or “industrial” was ridiculous.
Those people know: The applicant’s operation clearly concerns an INDUSTRIAL use.
• Second, Meridian’s own Development Code categorizes recycling centers as “heavy
industrial” uses.18 The applicant may argue that its operation is not a “recycling center,”
but if it isn’t a recycling center, then the applicant’s use is prohibited in all zoning
districts, because “composting center” is not included in any of the use tables as a
permitted use, an accessory use, or a conditional use, making “composting center” a
prohibited use everywhere in the City.19
• Third, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) categorizes the
applicant’s operation as industrial, not agricultural.
• Fourth, the Idaho Department of Agriculture categorizes the applicant’s operation as
industrial, not agricultural.
• Fifth, the Idaho Legislature categorizes the applicant’s operation as industrial, not
agricultural.
• Sixth, City Planning staff categorizes the applicant’s use as industrial, not agricultural.
• Seventh, the City’s Planning Director categorizes the applicant’s use as HEAVY
industrial, not agricultural.20
18 See definition of “RECYCLING CENTER” in Meridian’s Uniform Development Code § 11-1A-1.
19 See Gardiner v. Boundary Co. Bd. of Commr’s, 148 Idaho 764, 229 P.3d 3369 (2010), overruled on other grounds (holding
that any use that is not expressly authorized or designated in a particular zone, either as a matter of right or upon obtaining
a CUP, cannot be pursued there).
20 See note in Section V.C. (on p. 2) of the original staff report: “Because the Director deemed the proposed use to be heavy
industrial… ” (emphasis added).
pg. 6
• Eighth, even if we assume that the applicant’s operation is agricultural, which it isn’t,
the Idaho Supreme Court has held that the Right to Farm Act does not apply when it
is the agricultural use that expands.21 The Timber Creek application does not seek to
expand resident ial uses around an existing agricultural use; rather, it is the applicant ’s
nonconforming use of the property for industrial grinding, commercial food waste, and
construction garbage that the applicant requests to expand. Under the Right to Farm
Act, t he City can call the applicant ’s rotating accumulation of filth a nuisance, because
the surrounding properties remain unchanged. In fact, other than the area’s rat and bug
populations, the applicant’s operation is the only thing expanding. As a result, the Right
to Farm Act does not apply to this application.
IV. SUBSECTION 6.8.2 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED D.A.
Subsection 6.8.2 of the proposed amendments to the Development Agreement does nothing to
assuage the neighbors’ concerns. In the revisions since July’s public hearing, the applicant
significantly weakened this subsection, making certain that the applicant ’s heavy industrial use of
the property will continue until the applicant, and no one else, decides it is time to cease.
This will be discussed in greater detail in oral testimony at tonight ’s public hearing.
V. PROPOSED D.A. REVISIONS - NO SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION.
The revisions to the proposed Develop ment Agreement provide no significant mitigation of the
significant adverse effects of the proposed heavy industrial use.
This will be discussed further in oral testimony at tonight’s public hearing.
VI. REMINDER: EX PARTE COMMUNICATION IS PROHIBITED.
As a reminder, Idaho law prohibits members of a decision-making body from engaging in ex parte
contact with a party about a pending application. Any contact with an affected parties must be
dis closed.
VII. COMPARING APPLICATIONS.
During tonight ’s public hearing, oral testimony (with visual aids) will be presented comparing this
application with the 2016 application submitted to Ada County for Boise City’s composting
operation at the Twenty Mile South Farm.
VIII. DECISION-MAKING STANDARD.
During tonight ’s public hearing, oral testimony will be presented on the correct decision-making
standard the City must apply in considering the Timber Creek application.
21 See Crea v. Crea, 135 Idaho 246, 16 P.3d 922 (2000) (holding that the Idaho Right to Farm Act does not apply to an
application to enlarge an existing agricultural operation) (emphasis added).
pg. 7
IX. CONCLUSION.
I hereby submit this Memorandum in opposition to application number H-2018-0042 on behalf of
a consortium of landowners and residents, all of whom object to the Application. Prior to the July
17, 2018, public hearing on the application, I filed a Memorandum of Objection and a Neighbors’
Rebuttal to the July 17, 2018, public hearing on the Application. I hereby incorporate all of the
arguments contained in those documents into this Me morandum by this reference. I also
incorporate all of the testimony from the July 17, 2018, public hearing that was given by members
of the public who were opposed to the Application.
Please listen to your staff (they are the experts), protect the neighbors’ rights, and follow your own
ordinances and rules: Deny the application to amend the D.A., and require the applicant to go
through the CUP process, as required by Meridian’s own Development Code.
Sincerely,
Joshua J. Leonard
Attorney at Law
Brian L. Webb Attorney
Joshua J. Leonard Ifttorney
Larry Dunn Attorney
Michael C. McClure *torney
A.J. Bohner J.D.
Kenneth Perkes J.D.
Katie E. Clow Paralegal
Jeanne Jackson -Heim Paralegal
Raquel Anguiano LegalAssistant
p: 208 331 9393
f 208 331 9009
971 E. Winding Creek Dr.
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Memorandum of Required Conditions
(Application No. H-2018-0042)
INTRODUCTION
Brian Webb
L E G A L
This Memorandum of Required Conditions (the "Memorandum") addresses several
conditions, required by Meridian City's Unified Development Code ("U.D.C."), that must be
added to the Amended Development Agreement (the "D.A.") prior to Meridian City Council's
formal approval of Application No. H-2018-0042 (the "Application"). This Memorandum is
limited, pursuant to the Council's clear direction, to discussing the additional conditions that are
required by the U.D.C. This Memorandum is not intended, nor shall it be interpreted, to waive any
of the objections against the D.A.that were included in prior public testimony (both in-person
testimony and written testimony that was submitted to the City). The issues contained in the prior
memoranda I submitted to the City on July 13, 2018, July 17, 2018, and September 18, 2018, and
in my prior in-person testimony on July 17, 2018, and on September 18, 2018, are incorporated
herein, and are preserved for judicial review.
REQUIRED CONDITIONS
The applicant, in its proposed modifications to the Development Agreement, failed to
include over a dozen conditions required by Meridian's U.D.C. for recycling and composting
operations located near residential zoning districts. Many of the required conditions were included
in the July 17, 2018, staff report, but the applicant failed to include them in its revisions to the
proposed D.A. amendments.
The conditions discussed in this Memorandum are require by the U.D.C. Failure to
include all of these conditions in the City's approval of this Application and amendment of the
D.A. will constitute reversible error upon judicial review of the City's approval of the Application.
REQUIRED CONDITION 1
The Applicant Must Obtain a C.U.P.
The City's U.D.C. generally prohibits industrial uses, like the applicant's, on residentially -
zoned property. The existing D.A. authorized continuation of the non -conforming use on the
subject property, but the City's U.D.C. expressly prohibits expansion of a nonconforming use
without obtaining a Conditional Use Permit (a "C.U.P.").1 The U.D.C. expressly requires that the
D.A. include a condition to apply for and obtain a C.U.P. that actually and legally authorizes
expansion of the non -conforming use. Absent a C.U.P., the non -conforming use that existed on
the subject property at the time it was annexed into Meridian City cannot be expanded.
U.D.C.
Each of the following conditions must be included in a C.U.P., pursuant to the City's
REQUIRED CONDITION 2
Sight -screening Required.
U.D.C. § 11-4-3-32.A requires a condition to be added that mandates the applicant to
construct sight -screening that is sufficient to block the view of the expanded heavy industrial use,
both from Locust Grove Road and from Columbia Road. Absent sight -screening, as required by
the City's own U.D.C., the City's approval of the applicant's expanded heavy industrial use will
be reversed on judicial review.
REQUIRED CONDITION 3
Grounds to be Kept Orderly.
U.D.C. § 11-4-3-32.B requires a condition to be added that holds the applicant responsible
for maintaining all grounds and facilities in an orderly manner, to keep them from becoming a
' See UDC § 11-113-1, which reads:
...nonconforming properties, uses, structures, or signs shall not expand or extend the nonconforming
aspect of the property, use, structure, or sign unless approved subject to a conditional use permit as
set forth in section 11-513-6 of this title.
Emphasis added. See also UDC § 11 -1B -4.A.2., which reads:
A. The nonconforming use may continue as long as the use remains lawful and is not expanded or
extended, subject to the following provisions:
2. Extension: A nonconforming use may be extended to occupy additional land area only
through the approval of a conditional use permit in accord with the procedures set forth in
chapter 5, article B, "Specific Provisions", of this title.
Emphasis added.
pg. 2
public nuisance. Absent this condition, the City's approval of the applicant's expanded heavy
industrial use will be reversed on judicial review.
REQUIRED CONDITION 4
Equipment and Operations Must be Kept a Minimum
of 300' from Abutting Residential Districts.
U.D.C. § 11-4-3-32.C. requires the addition of a condition to the D.A. that states that all
mechanical equipment and operations, power -driven processing equipment and operations,
shipping and delivery areas, and other outdoor activity on the subject property must be kept and
operated a minimum of 300' from abutting residential districts. All of the property surrounding
the subject property is residentially zoned, so this condition essentially requires all of the
applicant's mechanical equipment and operations, processing equipment and operations, shipping
and delivery areas, and other outdoor activity to be a minimum of 300' from the boundaries of the
parcels comprising the subject property. Absent this condition, the City's approval of the
applicant's expanded heavy industrial use will be reversed.
REQUIRED CONDITION 5
Driveways and Open Areas Must be Surfaced with Dustless Material.
U.D.C. § 11-4-3-32.D requires, as a condition, that the applicant must surface all driveways
into and through the site, and any open area, with a dustless material (e.g., asphalt, concrete, pavers,
or bricks). Absent this condition, the City's approval of the applicant's expanded heavy industrial
use will be reversed on judicial review.
REQUIRED CONDITION 6
No Unsorted Material Shall be Stored Outside.
U.D.C. § 11-4-3-32.E requires inclusion of the condition that the applicant store no
unsorted material outside. Failure to include this as a condition subjects the applicant's expanded
heavy industrial use to reversal on judicial review.
pg. 3
REQUIRED CONDITION 7
Impacts of Noise and Other Emissions Must be Addressed.
U.D.C. § 11-4-3-25.13 mandates that the City, prior to executing a modified D.A., require
the applicant to identify how it will address the impacts of noise and other emissions from the
expanded heavy industrial use on adjacent residential districts. In addition, the applicant's
identified means of addressing these negative impacts must be imposed as a condition of allowing
the heavy industrial use to expand.
REQUIRED CONDITION 8
Applicant Must Obtain Written Statements
from all Governmental Entities with Jurisdiction.
U.D.C. § 11-4-3-32.1) requires the City to include the condition that the applicant must
obtain written statements from all federal, state, and local entities with jurisdiction, including (but
not limited to) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the Central District Health Department, the Ada County Air Quality Board, the Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources, stating that the subject
property, the proposed heavy industrial use, and the site, facilities, structures, and equipment
involved in the proposed heavy industrial use all meet every applicable standard governing such
use, site, facility, structure, and equipment. The written statements from all governmental entities
that have jurisdiction must find that the applicant's proposed expansion includes mitigation for all
of the following adverse effects:
- noise,2
- odors,3
- vibrations,4
2 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 3, Subsection 253.1. The excessive noise caused by the Applicant's current
operation under its existing nonconforming use is extremely detrimental to the neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of their
respective properties. The noise emanating from the Property only will get worse if the City violates its policy and the
requirements of the Development Code by approving the Development Agreement modifications requested by the Applicant.
s See Id.
4 See Id. Vibrations are another key concern of neighbors of the Property, whose homes vibrate and pictures on walls rattle,
all from the Applicant's current operation under its existing nonconforming use. As with the sound emanating from the
Property, the vibrations only will get worse if the City violates its policy and the requirements of the Development Code by
approving the Development Agreement modifications requested by the Applicant.
pg. 4
- blowing debris and other material,' and
- any other emission or radiation that endangers human health, results in
damages to vegetation or property, or exceeds health and safety standards.6
Mitigation tools that may be used by the Applicant include setbacks, buffers, sound
attenuation, and hours of operation. The written statements that the applicant must obtain, pursuant
to U.D.C. § 11-4-3-32.D, from all governmental entities that have jurisdiction must include a
statement that the subject property, the proposed expanded heavy industrial use, the site, the
facilities, the structures, and the equipment all meet every applicable standard governing such use,
site, facility, structure, and equipment. The U.D.C. requires the applicant to submit these written
statements with its application. Curiously, that requirement must have been waived in this special
case.
REQUIRED CONDITION 9
REQUIRE CESSATION OF EXPANDED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE UPON
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN ANY
JURISDICTION, NOT JUST WITHIN MERIDIAN CITY
Proposed subsection 6.8.2 of the D.A. amendments submitted by the Applicant does
nothing to assuage the neighbors' concerns. In its current form, as it exists prior to amendment,
the section (which is numbered differently prior to the amendments, due to the other changes
proposed by the Applicant) reads:
Termination of Recycling Operations. The above -listed recycling activities on
the Property will cease, unless permitted in the UDC:
Within thirty (30) days of the latter of: i) the City of Meridian granting
a Certificate of Occupancy to any residential or commercial
development within 1000 feet of the grinding machine located on the
Property, as approximately depicted on the attached Exhibit C; or ii)
notice of the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy to any residential or
commercial development.
5 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 3, Subsection 32.C.
6 See Dev. Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 3, Subsection 25.13.3.
pg. 5
Since the July 17, 2018, public hearing (during the time the Applicant said it was trying to work
with neighbors to assuage their concerns), the Applicant made substantial amendments to its
proposed D.A. In the revisions since July's public hearing, the Applicant significantly weakened
this subsection, making certain that the applicant's expanded heavy industrial use of the property
will continue until the applicant, and no one else, decides it is time to cease the heavy industrial
use of the property and develop it in conformance with the U.D.C. and the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The following is how the Applicant's proposed subsection 6.8.2 reads now:
Termination of Recycling Operations. The above -listed recycling activities on
the Property will cease, unless permitted in the UDC:
Development of Adjacent Property. Within thirty (30) days of written
notice that the City has granted a Certificate of Occupancy to any new
residential or commercial development within 1000 feet of the grinding
machine located on the Recycling Property, as approximately depicted
on the attached Exhibit "C", being delivered to Timber Creek. For
purposes of this Section 6.8.3, a "new residential or commercial
development " shall mean real property which has:
(a) Been annexed into the City;
(b) Zoned either with a commercial designation or a
residential designation of R-4 or denser;
(c) Has been subdivided in accordance with Meridian City
Code, excepting however any real property subdivided
by a short plat under Meridian City Code 11-6B-6; and
(d) Receives water and sewer services from the City.
This version of the proposed D.A. amendments (immediately above), which was submitted
by the Applicant after it received direction from the Meridian City Council to work with the
neighbors to mitigate some of their concerns, actually is far more offensive to the neighbors than
the proposed amended D.A. that the Applicant originally submitted with its application. As you
can see, above, all of the proposed edits made by the Applicant after July 17th only benefit the
Applicant.
The Applicants respectfully request that this section of the proposed amendments to the
D.A. be re -revised to comply with the City Council's instructions to the Applicant to work with
pg. 6
the neighbors to mitigate their concerns. To that end, this section of the proposed amended D.A.
should read:
Termination of Recycling Operations. The recycling activities on the Property
shall cease, unless allowed or permitted based on the Table of Allowed Uses
contained in the UDC:
Within thirty (30) days of the City receiving notice that any city or
county has granted a Certificate of Occupancy to any residential or
commercial development within 1000 feet of the Property.
CONCLUSION
Please listen to your staff (they are the experts), protect the neighbors' rights, and follow
your own ordinances and rules: Deny the application to amend the D.A., and require the
applicant to go through the CUP process, as required by Meridian's own Development Code.
Requiring a C.U.P. is the only legal way, according to the City's own U.D.C., to enforce
the conditions that are mandated in the U.D.C. and discussed above
Sincerely,
6
Joshua J. Leonard
Attorney at Law
pg. 7