« Ind. Gov't - "If there is a default of some kind or a bankruptcy, can Indiana get the toll road back and lease it again?" | Main | Ind. Law - New golf cart laws may need corrective amendments »
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Environment - Burns Harbor's BZA to rethink Arcelor-Mittal denial
Gitte Laasby of the Gary Post-Tribune reported August 8th in a story that began:
Faced with a lawsuit, the Burns Harbor Board of Zoning Appeals is backpedaling on its refusal to let ArcelorMittal add more waste to a proposed new landfill.ArcelorMittal has filed an appeal of the decision to a trial court, saying the board's denial was illegal, irrational and an abuse of discretion.
The board voted on June 23 to reject ArcelorMittal's request to add 700,000 tons of waste to the proposed landfill. Board members had already approved sending 1.5 million to 1.8 million tons of steel-making waste to the 173-acre landfill, but members were seemingly persuaded by six people at a public hearing who argued against accepting more waste.
The problem is, the board has yet to file a written justification for its denial, which is required within five days of the decision. BZA secretary Toni Biancardi said the issue was tabled at the board's July 28 meeting and is on the agenda for the Aug. 25 meeting, at which the BZA has requested a representative of ArcelorMittal and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to be present.
ArcelorMittal has asked the Porter Superior Court to review the decision, saying the board "unlawfully denied" the request and hasn't substantiated its decision with facts.
"The BZA's denial is not supported by substantial evidence," the petition states. "Indeed, the evidence, if any exists, upon which the BZA based its denial ... is speculative and unsubstantiated opinion testimony devoid of a probative value. Accordingly, the denial does not rest upon a rational basis."
The company argues that it has met all eight criteria for allowing additional waste. For instance, the landfill will not change the character of the area, it will be harmonious with the adjacent property, reduce the amount of trucking to and from the property, reduce emissions of various pollutants from trucking, is not hazardous or detrimental to people's health and safety, and puts no demands on public services.
"Oral testimony presented by remonstrators in opposition ... consisted of personal opinion, mere comments and unsupported assertions not relevant to the eight ... special exception statutory criteria under the zoning code," the company states in its petition.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 9, 2009 09:33 AM
Posted to Environment