People v. Genesee Lime Prods., Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 773 (1988)
A general excavation permit from a town, even if issued before the Freshwater Wetlands Act’s effective date, does not automatically exempt subsequent backfilling activities on those lands from the Act’s permit requirements unless the original permit specifically authorized or required such backfilling.
Summary
Genesee Lime Products was convicted of illegally altering freshwater wetlands without a permit. The company argued its backfilling activities were exempt under a “grandfather clause” in the Freshwater Wetlands Act because it had obtained excavation permits from the town before the Act’s effective date. The Court of Appeals held that the town’s excavation permits did not explicitly authorize or require backfilling, and therefore the company was not exempt from the Act’s permit requirements. The court emphasized that exemptions must be based on explicit approvals, not implied intentions, and that the company’s failure to seek a DEC permit was a critical factor.
Facts
Genesee Lime Products purchased land in 1962 to mine lime and obtained excavation permits from the Town of Wheatland. These permits incorporated a town ordinance that mandated leveling the land after excavation to ensure adequate drainage and prevent water accumulation. The permits expired between 1963 and 1965, and excavation ceased, although backfilling continued intermittently. In 1975, the Freshwater Wetlands Act took effect, classifying the premises as wetlands. In 1985, the company backfilled approximately two to three acres of the land without a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
Procedural History
The company was convicted in Justice Court for violating the Freshwater Wetlands Act and fined $500. The County Court affirmed the Justice Court’s decision. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Genesee Lime Products’ backfilling activities were exempt from the Freshwater Wetlands Act’s permit requirement under the “grandfather clause” (ECL 24-1305) because it possessed town excavation permits issued before the Act’s effective date.
Holding
No, because the town’s excavation permits did not explicitly authorize or require backfilling of the excavated land. The company’s actions were not protected by the grandfather clause.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the “grandfather clause” in ECL 24-1305 exempts land uses with final approval obtained before the Act’s effective date. However, the town’s excavation permits did not mandate or authorize backfilling. The court noted the absence of backfilling provisions in the town ordinance concerning excavation permits, contrasting this with the specific requirements for gravel pits, which mandated reseeding and restoration. The court refused to imply authorization, stating that “judicial determinations can only be based on the record made by the parties” and that the record lacked evidence supporting an assumption that backfilling was expected or contemplated. The court also dismissed the relevance of a handwritten notation on one permit about stockpiling spoils for future backfilling, as it did not require backfilling and the company used offsite materials. Addressing the intent of the “grandfather clause” to prevent hardship, the court stated that the company’s activity, occurring 20 years after the permits’ expiration, did not represent the type of hardship the clause was designed to prevent. Moreover, the court emphasized the company’s admission that it could have sought a permit from the DEC but chose not to, undermining its claim of inequity. The court found the company’s actions in violation of ECL 24-0701(2), which prohibits filling wetlands without a DEC permit. The court concluded that the excavation permits did not authorize the backfilling, and therefore, the company was in violation of the Freshwater Wetlands Act. The court stated, “Here, however, defendant not only lacked approval for backfilling the wetlands, but also its activity takes place a full 20 years after the expiration of one-year permits. This is not the picture of hardship that gave rise to the ‘grandfather clause’.”