New Business in Community, June 22, 2007 Metro Waste allowed to build facility without permit BY STEPHANIE CHAMBERS Standard-Examiner correspondent MARRIOTT-SLATERVILLE Metro Waste will be allowed to move forward with its site plan to build a 60,000-square-foot facility at 1350 S. 1900 West without applying for a conditional-use permit, the planning commission decided Tuesday Metro owns the land, which is zoned Ml for light manufacturing, and has submitted a site plan application. The zoning ordinance lists 58 types of businesses allowed in Ml, including a transfer company, and Metro Waste applied to build under that portion of the ordinance. "I think it's a stretch within anyone's imagination to think that fits within a definition of a transfer company," said Dave Wilson, an attorney representing the Weber County Commission. "When Marriott-Slaterville became a city, they adopted Weber County zoning ordinances," Wilson said. "This definition of transfer company was part of that. Although this is a legal definition, it is also a common-sense defini-tion. A transfer company is a moving and storage company. I don't believe (Metro Waste) fits within the definition of a transfer company." Wilson urged planning commission members to think of the definition of transfer company when the ordinance was passed. "The county ordinance was adopted in 1958. There were no solid waste companies in 1958," Wilson said. He also said that in his Internet searches of law, he could not find a definition of "transfer company" that included a solid waste company. Board of Adjustment Meets on Business July 29, 2007 Board to decide zoning issue MARRIOTT-SLATERVILLE The city's board of adjustment will meet at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the municipal complex to review the planning commission's inclusion of Metro Waste in the M-1 (light manufacturing) zone. The board meets when a final planning commission or city council decision is challenged. Weber County is protesting the meaning of "transfer company" that planning commission members defined in a June meeting. The planning commission's decision would allow Metro Waste to build their facility without a conditional-use permit. Mark Richards, an attorney for Metro Waste, disagreed. "In the research that I conducted, more often than not, when a transfer company was referenced it was being referenced in connection with a waste company, rather than a moving company," he said. Richards cited several cases of Utah and U.S. Supreme Court law that defined waste companies as transfer companies. "Garbage is garbage," said Robert Morris, a resident who owns 60 acres near the proposed development. "If you're going to take over the county ordinances and base city ordinances on it, you ought to follow it, and you should follow the same procedure they used when they put in their transfer station." After the public hearing, commission members discussed both sides of the argument. Discussion centered on whether Metro's planned use of the facility fit within the definition of a transfer company and whether the company could be classified as light manufacturing. "The garbage truck goes around and picks up all the garbage and they'll drop it off there," said City Attorney Bill Morris. "Everything is inside a building. They transport it in, sort it, and then transport it out." Morris provided findings in support of both sides of the debate, saying he wanted to make sure the planning commission had law to back up whatever definition it chose to adopt. "This is the worst case that an attorney wants to be in, because it's a 50/50 situation," Morris said. "Case law supports it, but there are court cases that don't." The commission voted 4-1 in favor of including Metro Waste's proposed use in the definition of "transfer company." However, they did say they expect their decision to be appealed. "For myself, it doesn't matter. It will probably go to the board of adjustment from the sound of everything here," said Les Syme, planning commission chairman, who cast the lone dissenting vote. Other commission members expressed their unhappiness at having a waste company included in the Ml zone. Morris, the attorney, said a commissioner asked staff after the meeting to propose an amendment to eliminate transfer companies from the Ml zone. 51