13 N.Y.3d 88 (2009)

A quarrying company can establish a prior nonconforming use for its entire property, including areas held in reserve for future excavation, if it demonstrates a clear intent to use the property for quarrying purposes, even if actual excavation has not occurred on every portion of the land before the enactment of restrictive zoning ordinances.

Summary

Buffalo Crushed Stone (BCS) sought a declaratory judgment that zoning restrictions were void on unexcavated portions of its quarry. The Town of Cheektowaga argued its zoning ordinances were enforceable. The Court of Appeals held that BCS demonstrated a prior nonconforming use for most of its property, including areas held as mineral reserves, due to its long-standing quarrying operations and expressed intent to utilize the entire property for that purpose. However, factual issues remained regarding specific subparcels, requiring further inquiry.

Facts

BCS and its predecessors operated a hard-rock quarry on approximately 280 acres in Cheektowaga for 80 years. The land was acquired between 1929 and 1992 and dedicated exclusively to quarrying. The disputed subparcels were primarily mineral reserves not yet actively quarried. The Town enacted zoning ordinances in 1942 and 1969. The 1969 ordinance permitted continuation of nonconforming activities but prohibited their extension or enlargement. BCS argued it had a prior nonconforming use right for the unexcavated areas.

Procedural History

BCS sued for a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that some subparcels had nonconforming use status, while others did not. The Appellate Division modified, granting the Town summary judgment on additional subparcels. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division order, finding in favor of BCS on some parcels and remanding others for further proceedings.

Issue(s)

1. Whether BCS established a prior nonconforming use for subparcel 5, despite the presence of Indian Road dividing it from actively quarried areas.
2. Whether BCS established a prior nonconforming use for subparcel 25D, considering the timing of its acquisition and the existence of quarrying permits.
3. Whether BCS established a prior nonconforming use for thoroughfares/roadway subparcels (28A/28B, 29A/29B, 30A/30B, 31-33), given their potential abandonment as public roadways.
4. Whether BCS established a prior nonconforming use for subparcels 17C/25C and 12B/25I, based on preparations for quarrying before the 1969 ordinance.

Holding

1. Yes, because the relatively narrow Indian Road did not negate the company’s long-standing intent to quarry both sides of the road.
2. Remanded for factual determination, because the court needed to determine when BCS received legal title to the land.
3. Remanded for factual determination, because the court needed to determine whether these thoroughfares were abandoned before the 1969 zoning ordinance.
4. Yes, because BCS made its intent to quarry clear before 1969 by preparing the land and securing quarrying permits.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court relied on Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise, which recognized the unique nature of quarrying: “a quarry operator will not excavate his entire parcel of land at once, but will leave areas in reserve, virtually untouched until they are actually needed.” The Court found that BCS and its predecessors acquired the property exclusively for mining. The Court stated that for subparcel 5, the narrow roadway was not a physical separation and cited evidence of BCS’s intent to mine the area. As to subparcel 25D and the thoroughfares, issues of fact remained concerning when BCS obtained rights to the land and when the roadways were abandoned. For subparcels 17C/25C and 12B/25I, the court found that the actions of clearing the land and obtaining quarrying permits demonstrated an intent to quarry them in the future. The dissenting opinion argued that Indian Road separated parcel 5, making it ineligible for nonconforming use status and that a mining permit was required for parcel 25D to be lawfully mined.