DIRT Development for Tuesday, February 3, 2009
by:
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of
Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City,
Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
ZONING AND LAND USE; PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING
USE; QUARRYING: A landowner is not entitled to conduct quarrying
activities on parcels of land not zoned for such activities merely because the
parcels are contiguous to other parcels of land also owned by the landowner and
on which quarrying had occurred over a long period of time.
Buffalo
Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Town of Cheektowaga, 864 N.Y.S.2d 598 (A.D. 4 Dept.
2008).
Plaintiff owns approximately 230 acres of real property
within the Town of Cheektowaga and it operates a hard rock quarry upon
approximately half of its land. Certain parcels on the other half of Plaintiff's
land are in dispute in this case.
Defendant enacted a zoning
ordinance that created a special "Aggregate District" ("AG") in which quarrying
was allowed. Plaintiff owned several parcels of land that were not within
the boundaries of this district, but were contiguous to parcels of Plaintiff's
land that were within the AG and on which quarrying activities had been
undertaken for many years, both before and after the AG was created.
Plaintiff moved for a declaration "that all quarrying operations conducted
anywhere within the boundaries of [its property]" are entitled to prior
nonconforming use status" under the defendant's zoning
ordinance.
Plaintiff presented evidence that showed, in part,
that (i) in the past Plaintiff had attempted to relocate a road to the southern
boundary of his its property, demonstrating that it had intended to use such
property for quarrying, (ii) there was also 6,000 feet of 16-inch pipe running
along a road to a pumping station off Plaintiff's property and such pipe was
evidence of infrastructure devoted to mining, and (iii) Plaintiff applied for
and was issued mining permits in 1955 and 1960, long before the changes in
zoning.
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's arguments and held that
because Plaintiff failed to establish that it had conducted any "substantial
quarrying activities" on the parcels in question that "clearly manifest an
intent to appropriate [such parcels] to the particular business of quarrying,"
plaintiff is not entitled to extend the protection of a permitted nonconforming
use for those parcels. The issuance of mining permits, without any other
activities undertaken in furtherance of mining, the Court held, are precisely
the type of "self-serving acts of a very limited nature that cannot be
deemed to have thrown a protective mantle of nonconforming use over Plaintiff's
entire parcel of land as against a later prohibitory ordinance."
Furthermore, some of the acts of the Plaintiff to prepare the land for quarrying
occurred after the effective date of the zoning ordinance and thus were
irrelevant to establishing a prior nonconforming use.
Comment: This issue
is not without some dispute. There were cases early in DIRT’s history that
delineated the problem. See, e.g. Hansen Bros. v. Bd. of Supervisors of
Nevada County, 35 Cal.
Rptr. 358 (Cal. App. 1994) (The DIRT DD for
4/11/95) (Mining use in one area of a parcel land is entitled to be
extended to balance of parcel as a pre-existing use, but owner cannot
significantly intensify rate of extraction.) This case held that the
mining activity “imprinted” the entire parcel, and acknowledged that the
doctrine applies primarily to mining and not to other activities. But
compare: Township of Fairfield v. Likanchuk's, Inc., 644 A.2d
120
(N.J.Super.App.Div. 1994). (part of the same DD) (The expansion of a mining
operation from a small area of a tract to the entire tract, where mining is a
prior nonconforming use, constitutes an illegal expansion of the use.) The
lattter case differentiates its facts from those applying the “diminishing
asset” notion. It characterized the “So called diminishing
asset"
cases are slightly different, since the nature of the nonconforming use,
such as excavation or soil removal, involves the utilization of a wasting asset
and requires continual expansion over an area. Nonetheless, in such
cases, the owner must show that the entire tract was dedicated by the owner to
the mining activity despite the fact that the activity was limited when it
was rendered a nonconforming use. The mere unexpressed intention or
hope of the owner to use the entire tract at the time the restrictive zoning
ordinance is adopted is not enough. Intent must be objectively
manifested by the initial and ongoing operation of the owner before the
activity was
rendered nonconforming. Hansen, cited above, also embodies
this principle.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this
posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to
it are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon
in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal
matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to
the DIRT list. Accuracy of data provided and opinions expressed by
the DIRT editor the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense
the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are
posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general
public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating
confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet
discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume
varies,
but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily
Developments are posted every work day. To
subscribe, send the
message
subscribe Dirt [your
name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your
subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other
commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an
alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and
general real estate matters but also focuses upon residential real estate
matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more
valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys,
title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will
want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to
BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries
all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to
BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your
name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your
subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the
American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law
and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily
Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law,
UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying
or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes,
including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is
imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to
Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage
at:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/
Members
of the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate
and Trust Law or of the National
Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report that
includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic reviews of
real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting Antonette
Smith at (312) 988 5260 or
asmith4@staff.abanet.org