Landfills. "Judge upholds rejection of local landfill: Attorney for county board of zoning appeals says ruling supports local control." Some quotes from this story in the Munster Times:
VALPARAISO -- Porter Superior Judge Bill Alexa has upheld a decision by the county board of zoning appeals to reject a proposed 354-acre landfill in Porter Township. The court released the ruling Tuesday, nearly seven weeks after attorneys argued the case in court and two years after the BZA denied a special exception for the proposal at County Roads 550 South and 250 West.A story from the Gary Post Tribune reports:BZA attorney Lily Schaefer said the ruling is most significant because it upholds local control over these types of proposals. Attorneys representing the Lake County Trust Co., which sought the special exception, argued the decision should be up to state and federal officials, she said.
“The decision by the BZA to deny (Lake County Trust Company’s) petition for special exception was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” [Judge] Alexa wrote in his decision. Instead, Alexa wrote, the appeals board took into account “substantial evidence” at its April 2, 2002 hearing that concerned Indian burial grounds, harmful effects of increased truck traffic, effects on the local watershed and ground-water supply, discouragement of area residential development, and possible increase of scavenger animals and associated diseases.Earlier Indiana Law Blog entries on this dispute may be found here (3/11/04) and here (2/5/04).And Alexa cited a 1973 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Johnson County Plan Commission v. Fayette Building Corp., which held that “as a rule the court will not reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals where there is evidence to support it nor will the court substitute its own judgment for that of the board.” * * *
The appeals board has already retained an Indianapolis law firm, Sommer Barnard Ackerson, to assist board attorney Lily Schaefer in the event the case advances to Indianapolis.
Glenn Sechen, the Chicago-based attorney for the trust company, said he had not had a chance to review the decision and could not comment on any potential appeal.
Sechen had argued the appeals board applied “ad hoc” standards to the landfill case, violating federal landfill rules, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as the authority of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Another landfill story was published today in the Muncie StarPress. It concerns a proposed landfill expansion: "The landfill is asking the board for a special exception to allow it to expand from 120 acres to 320 acres, which could keep it in operation for another half century." More:
Few people realize "how big an expansion this would be," John Zakelj said after the meeting. He, Wendy Carpenter and other opponents believe the proposed expansion could make the landfill one of the largest in the state.To demonstrate the expansion, Charles Cantrell created a science-fair-like display on a 10-inch-tall, 5-feet-long foam board. It super-imposes a 165-feet-tall landfill running from the four-way stop on the north side of Farmland to the intersection of Ind. 32 and Ind. 1 south of Farmland. The superimposed landfill is nearly 50 feet taller than the 118-foot-tall grain elevator in downtown Farmland. * * *
Randolph County Commissioners and the mayors of Winchester and Union City are among the supporters of the expansion.
According to opponents, only 6 percent of the trash arriving at the landfill in 2003 came from Randolph County. About 1,000 tons a day of municipal solid waste are dumped in the landfill from Delaware, Madison, Jay, Randolph, Wayne and Henry counties in Indiana and from Darke and Miami counties in Ohio.
Clean Air Act. Two stories, both from the Louisville Courier Journal. The first, available here, is headlined "Cinergy challenges Louisville legal filing: Utility calls attempt to join pollution suit unnecessary." Some quotes:
In a federal court filing, Cinergy Corp. argues that the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District should not be allowed to join the federal government and several states in a lawsuit over the company's power-plant pollution.An editorial today in the Courier Journal commends the Louisville mayor's "proposed initiative to lower the alarmingly high levels of toxic pollutants in Louisville's air," which was mentioned in this ILB entry yesterday. Posted by Marcia Oddi at May 26, 2004 01:40 PMThe company called the district's request to join the lawsuit to curb emissions from its Gallagher power plant in New Albany "untimely" and unnecessary.
In a memorandum recently filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, Cinergy lawyers also claim that the district has failed to show that it can't trust the federal agencies already involved to adequately represent its interests.
Further, lawyers for the Cincinnati-based company said the district "appears to be primarily motivated by the desire to obtain additional emissions reductions to replace those lost when Louisville impermissibly terminated its Vehicle Emissions Testing program."